At the Bar December 2016

At The Bar December 2016

Your New Council Youth Court - Tailoring Responses to Youth Justice Inquiries, Reviews and Reviews of Inquiries

From the President INSIDE THIS ISSUE Pg 2 - From the President New Members Pg3 - Pg 4 - 2016 – 2017 NZBA Council Pg 8 - Youth Court – Tailoring Responses to Youth Justice Pg 14 - Inquiries, reviews and reviews of inquiries Pg 17 - Access to Justice - the Clearing House Model

Pg 18 - Annual Conference Report – And the winners are?

Pg 21 - Financial Transitions Pg 23 - Mentoring Pg 24 - Arresting Your Teen’s Bad Behaviour Pg 27 - Member Benefit Offer - Access the resources of KPMG Pg 28 - Petrol Head’s Corner Pg 31 - Events Pg 36 - NZBA Council Contact Details The views expressed in the articles in this publication may not necessarily be the views of the New Zealand Bar Association.

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE David O’Neill - Chair Tel: +64 7 839 1745 Email: david.oneill@nzbarrister.com Melissa Perkin Tel: +64 9 303 4515 Email: melissa.perkin@nzbar.org.nz CONTRIBUTIONS & ADVERTISING: Jacqui Thompson Tel: +64 9 303 4515 Email: jacqui.thompson@nzbar.org.nz DESIGN AND LAYOUT BY Kirsten McLeod Tel: +64 9 834 2224 NEW ZEALAND BAR ASSOCIATION Tel: +64 9 303 4515 Fax: +64 9 303 6516 Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz Web: www.nzbar.org.nz P O Box 631 Auckland 1140

2

By Clive Elliott QC Since our last newsletter in September, we have had several changes in the membership of the NZBA Council. The Council has recently farewelled Dennis Jenkin, Alexandra Sinclair, Stephanie Thompson, James Watson and Alice Osman. We are fortunate to have Jane Meares, a member of advisory bar, joining us. Jenny Cooper, from Shortland Chambers in Auckland, will also sit on this year’s Council. Lara Mannis joins the Council as a junior barrister representative.

Council profiles are on page 4.

I am also very pleased to report that Chris Gudsell QC has agreed to take over the role of head of training and his team are putting together a new and improved training program which will be rolled out next year.

On behalf of the Association I would like to thank both the departing and current members of our Council for their time and commitment to NZBA on behalf of our members.

Visit to the Australian Bar Association Council meeting and dinner On 28 October I travelled to Melbourne to attend the Australian Bar Association (ABA) Council meeting as well as a dinner organised by the President Patrick O’Sullivan SC. Also present were Noel Hutley SC (President, New South Wales Bar Association) and Andrew Harris QC (President, South Australian Bar Association).

I had the opportunity to speak at the ABA Council meeting. I indicated how the NZBA appreciated the support the ABA had provided and that we hoped it would continue and grow. I stressed that the NZBA wanted to foster closer relations and cooperation with the ABA and its constituent bars going forward. I mentioned that training was one area where we could work together for the common good. The ABA Council was supportive of greater contact and providing assistance.

During my visit I also had the opportunity to meet with Phil Greenwood SC (former Chair, Australian Bar Advocacy Training Council), Ian Robertson SC, the current Chair, Australian Bar Advocacy Training Council and Chris Gunson SC, President of the Tasmanian Bar. We discussed training issues such as the possibility of holding joint training events next year, including an advanced Trans-Tasman appellate advocacy training course. We will keep members informed of developments.

Silks Dinners Celebratory Silks Dinners were held in Auckland and Wellington. Both events went extremely well and we had an excellent turnout with 62 guests in Wellington and 95 in Auckland. I spoke at the Auckland dinner and Paul Radich QC represented NZBA in Wellington, as I was overseas attending the ABA Council meeting. My thanks to Paul for his assistance.

Photos of both events are included at pages 34 and 35.

Annual Conference The 2016 Taupo Conference was a great success. The event was a sell-out with registrations being closed early due to maximum numbers being reached. Inclement weather aside, the new format with the inclusion of offsite activities was very popular with the significant majority of delegates choosing to attend one of the optional activities. Photos from the conference are on page 31 and a conference report is at page 19. My sincere thanks to Conference Committee Chair Simon Foote, committee members Paul Radich QC and Lisa Hansen and the NZBA team for putting together such a great event. Planning for the 2017 conference is underway, with dates and venue to be announced shortly.

Insurance Underwriting Earlier this year, the NZBA Council received a recommendation from Marsh, the brokers of the NZBA Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme, to change the lead underwriter for the Scheme. The NZBA Council discussed this change at length with Marsh. After careful consideration, we accepted the recommendation of Marsh. We have been informed by Marsh that from renewal this year, Lumley, a business division of IAG New Zealand Ltd and AIG Insurance New Zealand Ltd will remain as our insurers. However, from 1 December 2016 Lumley will now be the lead insurer at 60% with AIG following at 40%. Marsh has advised that it will provide greater longevity to the plan and provide Marsh and the NZBA a better footing for future negotiations. All Scheme members will have received notification of this change by letter from Marsh. As part of the change, there is improved cover for cyber liability. If any members need further information on this change, please contact Executive Director, Melissa Perkin.

NZBA Website and Logo NZBA has made the decision to change its membership database software and update its website. This is long overdue and I am confident that members will find the new website a significant improvement. The changes are currently being worked on by the Secretariat. It is expected that the new website will be launched in January 2017. As part of the new website, the NZBA logo and branding will be updated. Watch this space.

Pro Bono Clearing House As part of its research on access to justice issues and responses, the NZBA hosted a meeting on 8 September at Shortland Chambers. The meeting was organised by NZBA Access to Justice Committee member Andrew

Barker, Cameron Madgwick, Co-chair of the Community Law Centres o Aotearoa and Fiona McLeay who runs the JusticeConnect Pro Bono Clearing House in the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales.

A number of invited stakeholders attended. These included members of the judiciary, representatives from the New Zealand Law Society, Auckland District Law Society Inc, Community Law Centres, large law firms, academics and members of the Bar. As a result of this meeting, there is ongoing work into the viability of a pro bono clearing house in New Zealand. I would like to express my thanks to Andrew and Cameron for devoting their time and energy to hopefully get this project off the ground.

Court Resourcing Working Group Paul Radich QC attended the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) Council meeting in late October. One of the items discussed at the meeting was around some serious concerns about court resourcing in some provincial centres. As a result, a decision was made by NZLS to form a Court Resourcing Working Group. Paul has agreed to join that working group on behalf of the NZBA and will be providing feedback from NZBA members in the provinces, particularly those who practise in the criminal jurisdiction. If any members wish to raise any issues or concerns in this area, please contact Paul.

Strategic Plan In February 2017 the Council is meeting to formulate a strategic plan for the NZBA. This is an important meeting because we plan to map out the future direction of the Association. This is your Association and we value your feedback and input. Please contact any member of Council if you have any suggestions or wish to raise any issues or concerns ahead of this meeting.

Finally, a special thank you to our superb executive team, Melissa Perkin, Jacqui Thompson and Lisa Mills. They do a great job for the Association and nothing is too much of an effort for them. They all deserve a well-earned break.

On behalf of the NZBA Council and staff, we wish you a safe and happy Christmas and holiday break. We look forward to seeing you again in the New Year, refreshed after your summer vacation.

Clive Elliott QC President

New Members Veronica Cress Dale Dufty Josephine (Jo) Hosking Rebekah Jordan Chris LaHatte Balthazar (Bal) Matheson

NAPIER AUCKLAND ROTORUA AUCKLAND WELLINGTON AUCKLAND

Janna McGuigan Tom Pasley Grant Pearson Aaron Perkins QC Jennifer Perry David Taylor

AUCKLAND AUCKLAND WELLINGTON AUCKLAND AUCKLAND WELLINGTON

3

2016 – 2017 NZBA Council From October 2016, the new Council took control of the NZBA. We farewell some valued Council members, Dennis Jenkin, Alice Osman, Alexandra Sinclair and Stephanie Thompson. We will however continue to have the benefit of Dennis’ expertise as he will be contributing to our training initiatives and assisting with liaison with the District Court.

The NZBA warmly welcomes its new Council.

CLIVE ELLIOTT QC – President (Auckland) Clive is a barrister, registered patent attorney and arbitrator. Before going to the Bar in 2000, he was a partner and headed the litigation team at the firm now known as Baldwins and was with the firm for 17 years. Clive was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2013. In addition to serving on various committees related to intellectual property, information technology and e-commerce, Clive has authored chapters in various publications on those topics and is President and a member of the management board of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ).

See www.shortlandchambers.co.nz/barristers/clive-elliottqc JENNY COOPER (Auckland) Jenny is an experienced commercial litigator specialising in company and securities law, fair trading and consumer finance law, competition law, and insolvency. Prior to joining Shortland Chambers in 2011, Jenny was a litigation partner at Bell Gully. She is a member of the Council of the Legal Research Foundation, and on the New Zealand Law Society’s Civil Litigation and Tribunals Committee.

See www.shortlandchambers.co.nz/barristers/jenny-cooper PETER DAVEY (Auckland) Peter began his career with Bell Gully Buddle Weir before moving to Rotorua to take up a position as a Crown prosecutor. He was appointed as Senior Crown Counsel and also maintained a civil litigation practice for private clients. He later became a partner at Lowndes Jordan before joining the independent Bar in 2004. Peter is a member of the NZBA Training Committee.

See www.davey.co.nz JOHN DIXON (Auckland) John first joined the NZBA Council as the Associate Member representative, being at that time a partner at Meredith Connell.

In addition to his eight years at the Crown Solicitor’s office, John spent several years in New York, including a stint at the King’s County District Attorney’s Office, Brooklyn. John joined the independent Bar in 2015 where he practises at Shortland Chambers in criminal law, regulatory law and commercial litigation.

See www.shortlandchambers.co.nz/barristers/john-dixon

4

JONATHAN EATON QC – Vice President (Christchurch) Jonathan joined the independent Bar in 1998 after 12 years practice in general litigation and as a senior prosecutor. Jonathan is a specialist in criminal jury trial and appellate litigation. Jonathan was appointed Silk in 2013.

He practises in Christchurch at Bridgeside Chambers.

Jonathan returned to the NZBA Council last year, having previously been a Council member from 2003 to 2010.

Jonathan is the Chair of the Criminal Committee.

See www.bridgesidechambers.co.nz/barristers/johnathaneaton-qc SIMON FOOTE (Auckland) Simon practises in commercial, criminal and regulatory matters with particular expertise in complex construction and engineering disputes and international arbitration. He is a member of Bankside’s Singapore Chambers and is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK) and the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand.

Simon receives instructions as an arbitrator in domestic arbitrations. Simon is Chair of our Annual Conference Committee and was Deputy Chair of the committee which organised the 2014 World Bar Conference.

See www.bankside.co.nz/barrister/simon-foote/ LISA HANSEN - Vice President (Wellington) Lisa commenced practice as a barrister sole in February 2010. Prior to that she was a Crown Counsel at the Crown Law Office for 13 years. Her earlier legal experience included two years as a commercial solicitor at Caudwells, Dunedin (1991 to 1993) and three years as the Regional Solicitor for the Department of Conservation’s West Coast Conservancy (1993 to 1996). Lisa is a Gambling Commissioner and a member of Legislation Advisory Committee. Lisa is a member of the NZBA Training, Annual Conference and Gender Equity Committees. She was also part of the team that organised the 2014 World Bar Conference.

See www.barristerscomm.com/60.php GREG HOLLISTER-JONES - Associate Member representative (Tauranga) Greg is the Crown Solicitor for Tauranga and senior partner of Hollister-Jones Lellman. He leads its criminal and regulatory practice. He was appointed as the first Crown Solicitor

WEIGHT LESS

Heavy on content Light on space

LexisNexis® NZBA eLibrary Package for Barristers now includes Lexis® Red, an app that allows you to access LexisNexis looseleaf content, digitally via iPad, laptop or PC. Portable Office to home to court

Innovative Highlight, annotate, copy and paste

Accessible Offline access

Links To your existing caselaw and legislation subscription

Efficient Updates automatically when you go online

For more information, contact your dedicated NZBA relationship manager — Matthew Pedersen on 09 368 9515 or email matthew.pedersen@lexisnexis.co.nz

© 2016 LexisNexis NZ Limited. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of RELX Intellectual Properties SA, and used under licence.

MP112016MV

Lexis Red is part of the Mobility pillar within the SmartOffice® Suite, giving you back more time to do what matters most.

for Tauranga in 1998 and since then has undertaken major criminal trials for the Crown. Greg also acts for the Medical Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Law Society in professional disciplinary cases.

See www.hjllaw.nz/people/partners/greg-hollister-jones/ DALE LESTER (Christchurch) Dale has been practising in civil litigation in Christchurch since 1990. He left a well-known Christchurch firm to practice as a barrister in 2004. He was one of the founding members of Canterbury Chambers in 2007. Dale’s main areas of practice are contract, commercial, insolvency and estate litigation. He has extensive experience in disputes concerning property transactions and leases, has acted for many of the insolvency practitioners in the South Island and in numerous estate disputes. Dale regularly represents clients in mediations, arbitrations and in all the major courts and also acts as a mediator and arbitrator.

See www.canterburychambers.co.nz/team/dale-lester/ LARA MANNIS - Junior Barristers’ Representative (Auckland) Lara joined Richmond Chambers in February 2016 after three years in the litigation department of a major Auckland firm. She has experience working on a wide range of general commercial disputes, including construction, property, contractual and insurance matters. In addition, she has been involved with a number of regulatory investigations. In 2015, Lara assisted Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited with both individual claims and the class action brought against it following the Christchurch earthquakes.

See www.richmondchambers.co.nz/profile/lara.php JANE MEARES (Wellington) Jane is a commercial barrister, with a wide range of public and commercial experience.

At the Bar, she has been involved in a broad range of public sector and commercial advisory work, working with in-house legal teams, firms of solicitors and overseas clients. Prior to joining Clifton Chambers, Jane was the chief legal adviser at the New Zealand Treasury – the Treasury Solicitor – and before that was a corporate and commercial partner at Bell Gully.

See www.cliftonchambers.co.nz/barristers-at-cliftonchambers/jane-meares/ TIHO MIJATOV - Junior Barristers’ Representative (Wellington) Tiho was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 2014. Before joining Stout Street Chambers, Tiho worked as a law clerk in Dunedin, as a summer clerk at Russell McVeagh in Auckland, and as a judge’s clerk at the Court of Appeal. Tiho graduated from the University of Otago in 2014 with LLB (Hons) (First Class). He came first in his class in several subjects and has published in peerreviewed journals in New Zealand and abroad, and has lectured at Victoria University.

See www.stoutstreet.co.nz/barrister-detail/?id=17

6

DAVID O’NEILL – Treasurer and Vice President (Hamilton) David O’Neill is a barrister in Victoria Legal Chambers in Hamilton. He was admitted to the Bar in 1980 and worked initially for a law firm in Napier before returning home to the Waikato in 1984 to work in the family firm of O’Neill Allen & Parker, becoming a partner in 1985. David joined the independent Bar in 1995. He mainly practises in the civil/ commercial area of litigation as well as Family Protection and Testamentary Promises claims. David also undertakes arbitrations, both as counsel and arbitrator and is an Associate of AMINZ. Apart from his legal practice, David is a competitive rally driver and writes regular motoring columns for two publications, including At the Bar. See www.nzbarrister.com PAUL RADICH QC (Wellington) Paul has 30 years’ experience as a trial and dispute resolution lawyer and has presented cases at Supreme Court and Privy Council level, in a range of areas. Paul joined the Bar in 2012, having been a litigation partner with Izard Weston, Bell Gully and Minter Ellison Rudd Watts.

Paul has acted for the Crown and for iwi organisations in the Waitangi Tribunal, the Maori Land Court and in the High Court and has negotiated Treaty settlements for iwi. He is an author of textbooks on judicial review and public law.

Paul was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2014.

See www.cliftonchambers.co.nz/barristers-at-cliftonchambers/paul-radich/ GRETTA SCHUMACHER - Junior Barristers’ Representative (Auckland) Gretta is a graduate of the University of Auckland, having completed a BA/LLB (Hons). Gretta represented New Zealand at the Philip C Jessup International Law Moot Competition as well as the Red Cross Asia-Pacific International Humanitarian Law Moot Competition. Gretta was admitted in June 2015. Prior to joining Shortland Chambers as a junior barrister, Gretta was a Judges’ Clerk at the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

See www.shortlandchambers.co.nz/juniors DEAN TOBIN - (Dunedin) Dean was admitted to the Bar in 1984. He worked as a solicitor specialising in civil litigation until 1996, when he commenced practice as a barrister sole. Dean undertakes civil litigation in the District and High Courts and acts as an advocate in arbitration and mediation. His practice incorporates general civil litigation, copyright and intellectual property disputes, trust and family protection claims, insolvency, company litigation, construction disputes and sharemilking disputes. Dean is a member of the Law Reform Committee.

See www.deantobin.com

LexisNexis® Books for Barristers Be among the first to receive these Exceptional new and updated editions

2nd

NEW

RELEASE

EDITION

NEW

RELEASE

Why Lawyers Are Like Lobsters

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

The New Zealand Supreme Court: The First Ten Years

Lessons on surviving in the law and the secrets of absolute and total success as a lawyer. A collection of satirical essays

by Marcus Elliott.

The authoritative text on the law relating to the New Zealand bill of Rights Act 1990.

A collection of papers analysing impacts of Supreme Court’s first decade.

RRP*incl. GST: $35 NZBA eLibrary price***: $24.50

RRP*incl. GST: $210

RRP*incl. GST: $75

NZBA eLibrary price***: $147

NZBA eLibrary price***: $52.50

ISBN: 9781927183601

ISBN: 9781927313107

ISBN: 9781927313589

5th

NEW

RELEASE

EDITION

NEW

RELEASE

Litigation Skills: A Practical Guide to Sentencing

Law of Contract in New Zealand

Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer

The book will assist junior lawyers to competently advocate for their clients at sentence.

Comprehensiveness, depth of analysis and coverage make this a first point of reference.

Examines the issues facing professional lawyers in New Zealand. It takes into account the changes and the cases that have followed the new Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.

RRP*incl. GST: $80

RRP*incl. GST: $170

NZBA eLibrary price***: $56

NZBA eLibrary price***: $119

ISBN: 9781927313985

ISBN: 9781927248973

LexisNexis books are part of the Research Suite of LexisNexis SmartOffice, giving you back more time to do what matters most.

RRP*incl. GST: $130 NZBA eLibrary price***: $91 ISBN: 9781927227824

Order your copy today. Visit www.lexisnexis.co.nz/store For more information contact your Relationship Manager, or call Customer Support at 0800 800 986

* All prices are in NZ, include GST and are current as of 01/04/2015. Prices are subject to change without notice.

•• Discount applicable while book is on preorder status, discount falls away once book publishes.

Where client is already on a discount structure, discounts cannot be combined, highest will apply. © 2016 LexisNexis NZ Limited. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., and used under licence.

MP092016MS

*** NZBA eLibrary subscribers are entitled to 30% discount on books.

7

Youth Court – Tailoring Responses to Youth Justice

By Principal Youth Court Judge John Walker The Youth Court is a unique jurisdiction in New Zealand. It addresses the serious offending of young people aged 14-16 years old, as well as some 12-13 year old children. Children and young people’s developmental stage means they cannot perceive consequences in the same way that adults can, and the majority will therefore “grow out” of offending. This understanding of children and young people calls for an emphasis on diversion where possible, and in serious cases, of holding the young person to account and working to acknowledge and meet their needs in liaison with their families. The legislation governing youth justice is an extremely aspirational piece of legislation, which codifies a diversion and needs oriented approach to youth offending, and paves the way for a solution-focussed court practice.

Bringing the legislation’s worthy principles to life and thereby providing a brand of justice tailored specifically for youth offenders has been an incredible challenge for all practitioners involved, not least Youth Court Judges, and our specialised lawyers – Youth Advocates. Indeed, we are only just coming to understand how great a challenge we face in the Youth Court.

I intend, in this article, to write about some of these major challenges. In particular, I will focus on the prevalence, in our youth offending population, of neurodisabilities. But, before I paint what might seem to be a depressing picture of what the Youth Court confronts, I want to say that none of us in that court is paralysed by the huge challenges.

I would say that we are generally invigorated by those challenges and search out ways the court might best confront, and overcome, those challenges. Working in the Youth Court has always been my greatest passion in my work as a judge. It is a place of enormous hope. So, I will ask you to hold onto that as I take you on what might otherwise seem to be a long and dark journey.

Major challenges By the time young people reach the Youth Court, they are 14 to 16 years of age, and things have already gone seriously wrong.

Not all young people who offend reach the Youth Court.

About 65% of young people are diverted by police. A further 5% or so never reach the court but instead go directly to family group conferences (which are a form of

8

roundtable discussion involving the family of the young offender and representatives from different agencies). Only about 30% of young offenders will reach the Youth Court.

These are the most difficult, most damaged of our young people who offend. We are presented with a young person whose behaviours have origins which go back at least a decade and in many cases, to the beginning of their lives.

The underlying causes of the offending behaviour are well entrenched and the Youth Court team must fashion responses to try and turn around, or at least ameliorate, these causes.

I have often been confronted in my Youth Courts with serious mental and physical health issues affecting the young people before me. Those who end up in the Youth Court often have chronic illnesses and diseases, often undiagnosed until questions are asked at Court; they are sometimes malnourished; they have alcohol and drug dependencies; they suffer from severe depression and other mental illnesses.

We see young people whose communities are gangs, and who have suffered neglect, abuse, or both; often they have witnessed and experienced family violence. We see young people who have a history of being sexually abused, particularly young women. Young women are sometimes engaging in prostitution to get by, their vulnerabilities taken advantage of by others.

Many, in fact the majority of the young people we see, are Māori. Māori are disproportionately overrepresented in the Youth Court and this is not improving. These young people are often alienated from their communities, and from their cultures. They are alienated from their whānau, hapū and iwi. And we know, from education, health and welfare statistics (as well as anecdotally), that Māori are overrepresented in many if not all of the hardships I have just described – poor housing, family violence, drug and alcohol abuse; the list goes on. I sometimes think we are playing a game of catch up – trying to make up for many years – decades – of issues that have either been addressed inadequately, or not addressed at all.

In fact, we are only just becoming aware of certain of some of the difficultes our youth offenders are facing. What we have woken up to in the past five years is the staggering prevalence of neurodisabiliities in the youth offending population.

Neurodisabilities In 2012, the Children’s Commissioner for England published a report entitled ‘Nobody Made the Connection:

The Prevalence of Neurodisability in Young People Who Offend’. Neurodisability is a broad term; it covers such atypical neurological profiles as intellectual disability, which may be generalised or specific, communication disorders, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD).

Drug use – which is highly prevalent among serious youth offenders – may further delay brain development.

This report caused ripples, and then waves, in the youth justice sector, because it indicated that while 2-4% of the general youth population have learning disabilities, 23-32% of youth in custody have learning disabilities.

For communication disorders, 5-7% of the general youth population are affected, while 60-90% of youth in custody are affected. While 24-31% of the general youth population are affected by Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), 65-72% of youth in custody are affected. The list goes on. While these are United Kingdom statistics there is no reason to think that the picture would be any different here; in fact our high rates of family violence and our binge drinking culture give reason to speculate that rates of at least TBI and FASD may be even higher than those in the report.

Apart from fairness and equity there are pragmatic difficulties. In the words of Judge Carlie Trueman of the Provincial Court of British Columbia in 2002:

The reasons these impairments are disproportionately prevalent in the youth offending population are complex and manifold. The characteristics symptomatic of one or several underlying neurodisability can include hyperactivity and impulsivity, low intelligence and cognitive impairment, alienation, and aggressive behaviour. These characteristics can directly lead to offending; low impulse control and social immaturity have been shown to contribute to sexual offending (and, in fact, general learning disabilities are particularly associated with sexual offending). They can also lead to life choices that increase the likelihood of offending; a sense of alienation, combined with cognitive impairment, may render a child particularly vulnerable to the influence of gang culture; the Teina Pora case is particularly illustrative of this point.

When faced with a neurologically atypical child (one who has, for example, a general learning disability and a communication disorder) surely we cannot expect that child to be like other, neurologically typical children.

The cognitively challenged are before our Courts in unknown numbers.

We prosecute them again, and again, and again. We sentence them again, and again, and again. We imprison them again, and again, and again. They commit crimes again, and again, and again.

We wonder why they do not change. The wonder of it all is that we do not change our expectations rather than trying to change them.

If we do not tailor our youth justice responses to, for example, a child with an intellectual disability, the child may be incapable of engaging with the intervention. Without information about a young person’s neurological profile, behaviours like non-compliance with bail conditions, and repeating the same mistakes even after attending rehabilitation programmes, are viewed as criminal justice issues only, and thus tend to be addressed by increasingly severe sanctions, which does nothing to help the young person off the path of criminality. A lack of information about neurodisability also results in a hugely expensive “trial and error” process. Court processes and court ordered interventions are expensive. When they are

The aforementioned report, then, made clear that many of the actions and omissions that are central to neurodisability count as criminal, or increase the likelihood of criminal conduct.

These are not new disabilities; they will always have been present in the youth offending population, but not identified. The report was a huge wake-up call for youth justice practitioners in NZ. It does not seem fair to punish a child for behaviours connected to undiagnosed FASD and ADHD, or to multiple traumatic brain injuries sustained as a result of abuse at the hands of a violent parent. It is not fair to punish a child for their neurological makeup.

We recognise the unique developmental stage of children and young people by having a separate youth justice system; one that recognises that children do not understand the consequences of their actions in the same way that adults do. The brain science tells us that the ability of young people to consider the consequences of their actions is often not fully developed until a person is in their twenties, when the pre-frontal lobe reaches maturation.

9

ineffective, that money is wasted, but more concerning are the immeasurable costs to the offender, to victims and to society. Indeed, ineffective processes have been shown to result in an increased risk of recidivism.

Responses Responding to neurodisability is no easy feat.

Neurodisability is not necessarily visible or easily identified.

Children with complex neurological conditions may show few signs of brain damage, cognitive impairment, or difficulty regulating emotion, and may not be capable of understanding or describing their difficulties. Even where they are identified, we face huge gaps in resource provision, and our youth justice processes are far from being tailored to individual neurological profiles.

However, I am proud to say that as we gain a greater understanding of the young people before us, we are increasingly taking steps to address these characteristics.

This is only possible because of the gradual implementation of solution-focussed court practice. The multifaceted problems that underlie offending behaviour require a multidisciplinary team response. The team approach in the Youth Court is part of its strength.

For example, there is now automatically an education reporting process whereby the court is provided with reports on the child’s educational history. As my colleague Judge Tony Fitzgerald has said, these are a “goldmine” of information. They can flag a history of chronic truancy, violent behaviour, or cannabis use. This sort of information can then inform youth justice responses at a very early stage in the proceedings – and lead to more targeted assessments.

Communication assistance has been a recent introduction to the Youth Court. Speech language therapists will assist the young person to understand and to be understood.

This is extremely important in a setting where your verbal expression matters so very much.

And over the last few years, the government has put $33 million into Regional Youth Forensic Services (mental health services) so that there is a forensic nurse present in almost every Youth Court in the country.

What all of these developments have in common is that they introduce an external expert into the justice equation.

The Youth Court now has the regular legal crowd, but also Child, Youth and Family, Youth Forensic Services, and an education officer, and sometimes others such as lay advocates (who provide information on the young person’s cultural context) and communication assistants.

What this means is that the Youth Court is becoming a truly multi-disciplinary environment, where social and medical sciences come together with specialist lawyers and Judges to furnish solution-focussed outcomes for young offenders.

We need that joint approach to respond to the sheer complexity of the young people who come before us.

Collaboration is undeniably to our benefit. Complex cases

10

involve complex responses. The more information the court has at its disposal, the more able it is to connect young people to effective responses.

Another very promising development is Auckland’s Information Sharing Protocol between the Youth and Family Courts, which means the Youth Court will be aware of any history of care and protection issues that have gone through the Family Court. This might highlight things such as a history of family violence, flagging potential Traumatic Brain Injury; or alcoholism, highlighting potential FASD. Of course, we are all challenged by budgetary constraints and a shortage of core resources. But it is worth mentioning that many of the changes already made to the Youth Court process have been done within the existing budgets. Sharing information between existing agencies, when done efficiently, ultimately saves time and resource for both agencies. Where information is shared between the Youth and Family Courts, for example, the Youth Court avoids bailing the young person to a parent’s house, only to find that there is a protection order in place against that parent.

Another development that has occurred within the existing budgets is the parallel development of culturally tailored responses to youth offending, through the Rangatahi Courts, where Youth Court processes take account of Māori protocol (or tikanga) and at a marae; and Pasifika Courts, where the Youth Court incorporates Pasifika protocol and is held at a Pasifika community venue. We now have 14 of these courts across New Zealand and they have been extraordinarily successful. The courts recently won an Australasian award for judicial innovation. The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration recognised that the Māori and Pasifika judges involved were taking practical steps to address the increasingly disproportionate overrepresentation of Māori in the Youth Court – through reconnecting young Māori and Pacific Islanders with their cultures, and through involving their whānau, and their communities, in the process.

So, there have been some extraordinarily positive developments in the youth justice sphere. These could not have occurred without the support of our communities.

The solution-focussed, multiagency approach is what transforms the Court into a place where I believe we can really make a difference.

Youth Advocates Youth Advocates play a critical role in the Youth Court process. They are part of the team when it comes to fashioning effective responses but they never lose sight of their important role in protecting the rights of the young person, who is often very vulnerable and in what must seem to be a very foreign and intimidating environment.

Youth Advocates bring to the Court a deep knowledge of youth justice practice and procedure, as well as expertise in working with young people. Not only this, Youth Advocates are also indispensable attendees at family group conferences, the restorative process run by Child, Youth and Family, which has been described as the “lynchpin” of youth

justice. The Youth Advocate is often the only professional around the table with an understanding of, and appreciation for due process, and it is vital that this right not be forgotten in our system’s quest to provide a solution. The Youth Advocate therefore has a unique role; a quasi-legal, quasimentoring role that often acts as a bridge between the Court and the conference, the young person and the Judge, and the language of the Court and the language of the child. This is an onerous task and I commend all Youth Advocates for their tenacity, their adaptability, and their willingness to go above-and-beyond for our children and young people.

Conclusion We Youth Court Judges will meet with a young person for maybe 15 minutes every few weeks. In pressured Courts with large numbers of Youth Court Judges and files, we may touch a case only once. We rely entirely on others to deliver the interventions – and indeed to keep young people out of Court in the first place.

What we Judges can, and should do, is advocate for and model the team approach which is the mark of the Youth Court process, and the team approach is the only answer I can see to the complex issues we encounter in the Youth Court. We can ensure that interventions are delivered, or the obstructions to delivery identified, and we can encourage a solution-focussed approach.

CLIENTS YOU’RE UNDER UNDER THREAT THREAT?

Unless young people’s complexities are identified and dealt with, using a holistic, individualised approach, the negative trajectories these young people are on are likely to continue.

And it falls on all of our shoulders to do everything we can to help these young people off their negative trajectories – and as early as possible – in our respective communities.

There are many resources in our communities that could be encouraged to assist with better meeting our young people’s needs. I am thinking about those who can help with literacy, with employment training, with gateways to apprenticeships and with the experiences of lifetimes. Engagement with iwi can allow access to many other supports for our young people; sometimes the solution lies in the young person reconnecting with their culture and therefore their identity.

Continuing to develop a solution-focussed practice, and truly connecting with each community is immensely challenging but I am sure you all agree that it is immensely important work by all involved. Everyone in the Youth Court is focussed on reclaiming young lives for the benefit of all.

Postscript: On 7 December 2016 the youth Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, announced that youth justice age would be raised to include lower risk 17 year-olds. The changes will take place by 2019. For more information see hwww.beehive. govt.nz/release/lower-risk-17-year-olds-included-youthjurisdiction.

Stop just wondering about misuse of company IT resources, espionage, sabotage, malicious behaviour and theft of intellectual property.

FIND OUT

CheckIT© A preliminary investigation process, secure and covert if necessary for employers who need to be certain.

Computer Forensics NZ Limited

Recovering data & fighting cybercrime since 1999

www.datarecovery.co.nz/checkit | Speak confidence 08005678 56783434 www.datarecovery.co.nz/checkit | Speak totoususininconfi dence onon0800

11

REUTERS: DAVID MDZINARISHVILI

LEGAL KNOW-HOW THE BEGINNING OF A BEAUTIFUL PARTNERSHIP Know-How is a new workflow solution from Thomson Reuters which delivers a task oriented step by step guide through a legal matter. Each workflow step combines expertly authored guidance on that step, the identification of tasks related to the step, and seamless integration with relevant checklists and downloadable precedents from Thomson Reuters Forms & Precedents products.

Intuitive and up-to-date, used as a time-saving tool and ideal for supervising and training less experienced staff, Know-How will become an indispensable partner in your practice.

For more information or to trial contact us at MarketingNZ@thomsonreuters.com

12

Wellington barrister Douglas Ewen talks about KnowHow Two years ago Thomson Reuters NZ approached the well known Wellington barrister Douglas Ewen to prepare a series of work flow resources. The goal was to provide authoritative task oriented step by step guides to enhance productivity and efficiency while minimizing risk. Douglas accepted the challenge, and today there two KnowHow products available Civil Litigation and Criminal Litigation.

We interviewed Douglas to find out why he agreed to prepare them and what made his workflow modules unique.

The questions we asked him are bolded. His answers are below.

Q. What was the motivation behind your agreement to prepare the KnowHow workflow products?

A. The impetus was, and is, twofold. In my capacity as a barrister I witness firsthand what passes for training for my younger and newer colleagues. They are principally left to their own devices. They sit in the back of the court and observe - essentially a passive process, and one that leaves them dependent on their employers for direction. If that is not forthcoming, they learn through the old and often painful way of making errors.

The fault here is not being young and neither does it necessarily rest with their seniors. Unfortunately the professional training available to junior members of the independent bar is cursory, and their employers are busy.

We’ve unwittingly created circumstances that leave our newer colleagues vulnerable.

And while I care very much about that, I also care deeply about the impact of their often flustered and naïve inadequacy on clients. Regardless of the level of experience of the person representing them, they deserve the best. In the criminal area what a practitioner does can have a significant bearing on the outcome for a client.

The relative safety of step by step guidelines I feel will make a palpable difference improving court practice in all areas. We have a responsibility to ensure that our part in establishing proof is “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

Q. What is the methodology behind the KnowHow workflows?

A. In essence I wanted to create a logical “if this, then that” workflow. If “this” is the starting point, then here are the set of tasks that a practitioner needs to follow, or at least consider. The steps are sequential and practical. Obviously not all matters will fall neatly and easily into the sequences

I have laid out! The workflows were never intended to be an all purpose catch-all. What they are there to do is provide an example, a template, that can and should be adapted to suit circumstances.

Q. What is the problem that KnowHow is solving?

A. Aside from providing guidance for less experienced practitioners, the workflows also could function extremely well as training and development tools. Senior practitioners are often in a bind. They know they need to provide training for their younger staff but making the time to generate comprehensive teaching material is immensely difficult. And if the area is outside of their expertise, then the task becomes gargantuan. These workflows cover everything. They’ll function as springboards – setting people off in the right direction.

They’ll demonstrate the mind set required, prepare people for the mental rigor needed, as well as teach an appreciation of the principles in a particular field of practice. For example, in my area, criminal, there is no room for dilettantes. Getting it wrong could mean the withdrawal of a person’s liberty!

Knowledgeable, competent and confident application of procedure matters!

Q. How useful would the KnowHow workflows be as part of ongoing education programmes?

A. Any organization could pick them up to use in either online or real time courses. Both modules could easily be split into segments and used as outlines or as an aide-mémoire to ensure proper and full coverage of a subject area. For instance topics like trial preparation, case management, or the critical importance of structure to an argument could all be taught from these workflows. They are robust, practical solutions to an openly acknowledged training deficit. No person deserves or should have to undergo a trial by ordeal! These mitigate against that.

Q. What sections of the workflows are you particularly proud of?

A. Bail in the Criminal Litigation module. Bail is an area that is in general, poorly understood, and the difference between knowing and not knowing about it can make a significant difference for the client. The initial decision to grant or not grant bail can inform the direction of the case, setting up its outcome. The too common lack of reference to either statute of case law leads to inconsistency which in turn furthers confusion. Following the workflow will encourage a rigorous approach leading to significantly better results and fewer restrictions on liberty. A pleasant byproduct of that for the lawyer is being taken more seriously. There’ll be respect for having prepared well and knowing what you’re talking about.

For more information and to organize a free trial please contact us MarketingNZ@thomsonreuters.com

13

Inquiries, Reviews and Reviews of Inquiries

By Jane Meares*

Inquiries seem to be a fact of life these days. They come in all shapes and sizes.

Some are obviously very public, whilst others are conducted well out of the glare of the media and their very existence may be highly confidential.

The more public ones are often conducted under particular statutory provisions.

Entities such as the Auditor-General, the State Services Commissioner and the Ombudsman have statutory powers (and, usually, immunities) to inquire into events or issues. Conversely, being asked to conduct an inquiry by on behalf of an organisation in respect of a more private matter can present a different set of challenges.

Why undertake an inquiry?

An inquiry is often announced to assure the public that some particular issue of concern will receive the (generally independent) scrutiny it requires. Sometimes the very fact of announcing an inquiry or review is enough to take the heat out of a particular issue, while the announcement of the results of that inquiry or review can go almost unnoticed.

A lack of independence can undermine the credibility of a review; witness the review recently undertaken by the New Zealand Rugby Union into the recent Chiefs debacle. Stuff reported: “The Chiefs board has announced they’ll review their handling of the stripper fracas and its fallout, as players and prominent Kiwis condemn how the investigation was handled.”

The condemnation of “how the investigation was handled” appeared to be in large part because it was not undertaken by an independent party, but by an employee of New Zealand Rugby.

Independent barristers, along with senior (often former) public servants, have been involved in their fair share of both formal and informal inquiries recently.

Before looking at some of the challenges for a barrister (or other person) undertaking such an inquiry, this article

14

summarises some of the different statutory powers available to those who do so (noting that this is not an exhaustive list).

Some relevant legislative provisions • Inquiries Act 2013 This Act came into force in August 2013 following an extensive Law Commission review. Its purpose is to modernise the law relating to inquiries. It now gives a statutory basis for “public inquiries”, enabling them to enjoy certain procedural and inquisitorial powers which only Commissions of Inquiry established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 (such as the inquiries into Pike River and the building failures in the Canterbury earthquake) previously enjoyed. It also specifically makes reference to the need for an inquiry, and each of its members, to “act independently, impartially and fairly” (section 10).

It was expected that the protections afforded by this legislation would mean that ministerial inquiries would no longer be undertaken, but even after the Act came into force, in July 2014 Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully confirmed that John Whitehead, former Secretary to the Treasury, would head a “Ministerial Inquiry” into how “ambiguity” was created about New Zealand’s position on the fate of a Malaysian High Commission official accused of an attack on a Wellington woman.

It is to be assumed, however, that the Act will generally be used where possible. Under it, inquiries can now be one of three types – a Royal Commission, a public inquiry established by the Governor-General or a government inquiry established by a Minister and notified in the Gazette, in the latter two cases in respect of matters of public importance. All three types of inquiry enjoy the duties, powers, immunities and privileges set out in Part 3, including powers to take evidence on oath or affirmation (section 19), obtain information from any person (section 20), order disclosure of evidence to a person participating in the inquiry (section 22) and summon witnesses (section 23). In accordance with section 11, no inquiry has the power to determine the civil, criminal or disciplinary liability of any person – notwithstanding that an inquiry can make findings of fault or recommendations.

The differences between Royal Commissions, Public Inquiries and Government Inquiries lie in the way they are established, and the way they report. A Royal Commission or a Public Inquiry is established by the Governor-General (on the advice of Ministers) and reports to the GovernorGeneral. Its report must be presented to the House of

Representatives. A Government Inquiry is appointed by and reports to one or more Ministers (section 6).

Recent “government inquiries” have included the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident chaired by Miriam Dean QC; the inquiry into allegations former Minister Judith Collins was part of a smear campaign against former Serious Fraud Office boss Adam Feeley undertaken by former High Court judge, Hon Lester Chisholm, the inquiry into the escape of Philip John Smith, chaired by former High Court judge, Hon John Priestley CNZM QC and, most recently the inquiry into the Havelock North water supply contamination incident, chaired by former Court of Appeal judge, Hon Lyn Stevens QC. The Act sets out some particular matters which are of relevance to all inquiries. A number of these are summarised below, including the importance of the terms of reference (section 7) and of the need to comply with the principles of natural justice (section 14).

• Other Legislation Other statutory officers and institutions have specific inquiry powers. Some examples are set out below. It is perhaps trite to say it, but when conducting an inquiry it is critical to be constantly mindful of the statutory basis for undertaking that inquiry.

Privacy Act 1993: The Privacy Commissioner’s functions include the ability to inquire generally into any matter relating to the privacy of the individual under section 13 of the Privacy Act. For example, in March 2012 the then Privacy Commissioner announced that her office had commissioned an independent inquiry and approved the terms of reference into the breach of privacy at ACC when thousands of files were sent to the wrong person.

Public Audit Act 2001: The Auditor-General has an inquiry power under section 18(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001. This provides that the Auditor-General may inquire, either on request or on her own initiative, into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of its resources. “Public entity” is given a wide meaning in section 5 of the Public Audit Act 2001 and includes the Crown, offices of Parliament, entities falling within a certain class such as community trusts, Councilcontrolled organisations, Crown entities, public service departments and state-owned enterprises, as well as a raft of specific named entities including the Nursing Council of New Zealand and the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board.

The recent inquiry into the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership was conducted under this legislation.

Ombudsmen Act 1975: The Ombudsman has powers under section 13 of this Act “to investigate any

decision or recommendation made, or any act done or omitted….. relating to a matter of administration and affecting any person or body of persons….”.

State Sector Act 1988: Under section 8, the Commissioner has the power to conduct any inspections or investigations that he or she considers necessary, or the relevant Minister directs. Section 7 gives the Commissioner all such powers as are reasonably necessary or expedient to carry out the functions and duties imposed on the Commissioner under the Act. Independent Crown Entities: The Transport Accident Investigation Act 1990 establishes the Transport Accident Investigation Commission as a standing commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. Thus, the powers available under that Act, and under TAIC’s own Act, are available to the Commission, whose principal purpose is “to determine the circumstances and causes of accidents and incidents with a view to avoiding similar occurrences in the future, rather than to ascribe blame to any person” (section 4). Other independent Crown entities, such as the Commerce Commission and the Law Commission, also have a variety of powers to inquire and review.

Non-statutory Inquiries: The vast bulk of inquiries, although not “enjoying” the same public profile, are however likely to be purely internal to an organisation. They can range from employment inquiries, for example into inappropriate conduct in the workplace, to allegations of leaked information or of bias. Where there is capacity in-house to conduct such an inquiry, it often falls to the legal team to undertake the inquiry itself or to be responsible for it by commissioning an independent lawyer to assist.

In-house inquiries can have both pros and cons. On the plus side, the inquiry is internal and discreet. On the downside, relevant statutory assistance and protections are absent. Without statutory powers to compel witnesses to give evidence, afford protection to those giving evidence or require documents to be produced, the “truth” of a matter or allegation cannot always be ascertained. In addition, the person conducting the inquiry can be exposed to liability. Allegations that the person conducting the inquiry has defamed a party named in a final report, or has not adhered to the relevant principles of natural justice, even if unfounded, can make undertaking such inquiries less attractive than might be thought. In some situations, assurances may be sought to hold the Inquirer harmless if such allegations result.

There is often an expectation that such inquiries can be very quickly conducted; this is not always the case.

Ensuring that the terms of reference are robust, and that adequate time is allowed to uncover evidence (including

15

interviewing relevant parties) whilst adhering to the principles of natural justice, require that these things not be rushed. Some important considerations are referred to below.

• Terms of reference As with all inquiries, and as is dealt with in section 7 of the Inquiries Act, the terms of reference are critical to the ambit of the relevant inquiry; an inquiry must be guided by them.

The Ombudsman’s investigation into SSC’s conduct of the MFAT leaks inquiry makes a number of comments which are pertinent to anyone undertaking an inquiry1.

In particular, the findings in MFAT’s final report were found to have exceeded the terms of reference for the inquiry.

The problem with terms of reference, which need to be developed at the outset, can often be that as an inquiry continues it becomes obvious that they are inadequate in some way. In fact, in relation to the MFAT inquiry, they were amended some three weeks after the inquiry started. It is useful to include a provision allowing this to happen.

• Conduct of the inquiry Decisions will need to be made at the outset as to who might be interviewed, bearing in mind the ability (or lack of it) to “require” persons to be interviewed and give evidence. There is an overriding duty that any inquiry be fairly conducted, even if there is no statutory requirement to do so. In practice, this means that interviewees must be given proper notice of an interview and advised how that interview will be conducted; for example, whether the interview will be recorded and transcribed. While an employee must comply with reasonable requests from his or her employer, such as attending an interview, generally no such requirement extends to others who might be able to contribute to the inquiry. This means that others can be invited to attend an interview, but cannot be compelled to do so.

person must be given notice of those allegations and a real, as opposed to nominal, opportunity to refute them. In the words of Cooke J in the Daganayasi case, the relevant person “should have a fair opportunity of correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to his or her view”. Consideration of those explanations must be unbiased and free from predetermination, uninfluenced by irrelevant considerations.

A further important rule of natural justice is that an inquiry must also ensure that the evidence relied on reasonably supports the conclusions reached (see Lord Diplock in Re Erebus Royal Commission (Re Erebus))2.

In short, attention to some of these fundamental principles at the outset of an inquiry, whether statutory or not, can make the process more straightforward and reduce the chance of a successful challenge by, for example, judicial review. * Jane Meares is a commercial barrister at Clifton Chambers.

She has undertaken a number of non-statutory inquiries for clients. She is a Commissioner of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and recently assisted the AuditorGeneral in relation to her inquiry into the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership.

Contact Jane at jane.meares@cliftonchambers.co.nz

• Natural justice Section 14 of the Inquiries Act specifically requires an inquiry to comply with the principles of natural justice.

In particular, section 14 (3) provides that if an inquiry proposes to make a finding that is adverse to any person, the inquiry must be satisfied that the person is both aware of the matters on which the proposed finding is based and has had the opportunity to respond to those matters.

Any non-statutory inquiry must also adhere to these principles. Natural justice can be equated with the duty to act fairly. This concept has been clearly endorsed by the Court of Appeal for a number of years, since the leading case of Daganayasi v Minister of Immigration [1980] 2 NZLR 130.

Where allegations of misconduct are involved, the relevant

The report can be found at: http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/1587/original/investigation_into_ssc_ conduct_of_mfat_leaks_inquiry.pdf?1466629016 as at November 2016.

2 Re Erebus Royal Commission, Air New Zealand v Mahon [1983] NZLR 662 (PC) [Re Erebus] at 671 1

16

Annual Conference Address: Access to Justice: the Clearing House Model

By Cameron Madgwick* E nga mana, e nga reo, rau rangatira ma, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa We often hear the whakataukī: He aha te mea nui o te ao, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata (What is the most important thing in the world, it is the people, it is the people, it is the people) Why do we hear that? We hear it because the it is the combined power of people to help all other people to create a better society for us all. This is a good lens through which to view your efforts to provide pro bono services to those most in need and also the rationale for a pro bono clearing house.

We’ll make a more just society, more effectively, through our combined and coordinated efforts. Indeed, it is this very simple premise which underlies the pro bono clearing house model - that pro bono is more effective when the potential clients are pre-assessed so that they can be matched to the lawyer with the best possible experience and skills to help that client to achieve justice.

With a combination of resources, this pre-assessment and matching can be undertaken in a coordinated manner, and in a manner which allows the lawyer to focus on the legal work rather than swimming through a sea of uncertainty seeking to determine whether there is a meritorious legal claim involved.

I previously worked closely with Jacquelyn Collins3 to make a pro bono legal clearing house a reality through the application of these principles. Following extensive dialogue, it was evident that there was widespread support for this concept across the profession, but we could not get if off the ground. The terminal challenge we struck was a general unwillingness by the profession to match their enthusiasm for the concept with financial resources to deliver it. Without that support, the concept was left to lie dormant.

It was accordingly very encouraging to see the Bar Association speak about access to justice at your conference last year (thank you, in particular, to Frances Joychild QC) and for a small group (Andrew Barker, Stephanie Thompson and Frances) to reach out to me to try to move this forward.

I am, of course delighted to read the Executive Summary of the report back of your Access to Justice Committee, written by Professor Chris Gallavin. This provides a good overview of the clearinghouse model and benefits to the profession, clients, CLCs and the justice system as a whole.

We have been working with this small group for the last 6 months to explore ways that this can move this forward and we have been making some strong inroads on that. As a group, we have established as the key success factors the criticality of ensuring that the concept, model and value proposition of a pro bono legal clearing house is understood so that the profession feels ownership for the clearinghouse and that commitments to resource it can be made on an informed basis.

To assist in growing this understanding, last week the Bar Association and Community Law co-hosted a roundtable discussion with a cross-section of the profession (including the bench, the bar, the Law Society, firms and CLCs).

We were delighted to have Fiona McLeay join us for that roundtable discussion. Fiona leads Justice Connect, Australia’s leading pro bono clearinghouse. Her 8 years in that role meant that she was able to provide some fantastic insights into the how to make a pro bono legal clearinghouse successful and sustainable.

Fiona also challenged New Zealand, stating that for a country with a reputation and history of innovation and leadership, especially in the justice sector, we lag substantially behind the rest our peers in being the only developed country without a pro bono legal clearinghouse.

This is confirmed by the Pro Bono Institute’s report.

Fiona, always solutions-oriented, said that this also posed an opportunity for New Zealand. That it would enable us to skip the mistakes and start-up pains experienced by clearinghouses and go straight to “clearinghouse 2.0”. She backed this up with a commitment to share her time as an adviser and also to share the resources, systems, policies

Jacquelyn Collins worked for the British firm Slaughter and May for several years and was responsible for developing and managing all pro bono and community investment initiatives

3

17

and procedures of her own clearinghouse so that the New Zealand version could get an early step up.

The Roundtable group was asked, through the robust and inconvertible method of a show of hands, to show their support for creation of a pro bono legal clearinghouse in New Zealand. Strong support was shown.

In summing up at the Roundtable Discussion, Andrew Barker offered the attendees a precis of the next steps.

Amongst those, was the discussion here today but, critically, also a pathway towards a request to provide the financial and other resources to make the clearinghouse a reality.

Let me be clear, without those financial and other resources, THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN and we are left with just more pronouncements of need and sentiments of support.

To that end, you may recall Justice Kirby’s 2002 speech where he said: “The bottom line is that law is not just a business.

Never was. Never can be so. It is a special profession.

The Attorneys-General recognise the importance of pro bono, whilst acknowledging that is always an adjunct to and can never be a replacement for a properly funded system of legal aid.

The Attorneys-General recognise the value of pro bono as a means of facilitating access to justice for disadvantaged members of society, and in helping lawyers to develop and maintain important skills that also contribute to fee-paying work and their overall professional expertise.

The Attorneys-General affirm that it is important that pro bono services are coordinated wherever they are offered, to ensure they are directed more effectively to where they are most needed and to maximise opportunities for sharing of expertise and resources.

The Attorneys-General encourage collaboration among pro bono providers wherever possible, to extend the reach and impact of pro bono services.

Noreira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa * Cameron Madgwick is the Co-Chair of Community Law Centres o Aotearoa

Its only claim to public respect is the commitment of each and every one of us to equal justice under law.”

Finally, and to sum up, let me read to you an extract from joint statement from the inaugural meeting of the Quintet of Attorneys-General from November 2009:

Annual Conference Report – And the Winners Are? The 2016 Annual Conference was notable for the quality of the presentations, the collegiality and the high degree of organisation. However, behind the scenes, darker forces were at work as members battled it out to win the various prizes on offer from our sponsors...

The 2016 NZBA Conference theme was The Psychology of Advocacy. The presentations began with Professor Maryanne Garry talking about memory and witness testimony. We have had several requests for follow up information on this presentation. There was no paper for this session, but more information about Professor Garry’s articles on this and related subjects can be found on her School of Psychology profile on the Victoria University website.

A very popular presentation was Dr Sven Hansen’s discussion of wellness and resilience. This led to a number of people asking to join his already oversubscribed workshop. Dr Hansen has invited NZBA members to access first module of online training on his website. This first course focuses on the basics of what resilience is and how to bounce back quickly and effectively.

Other presentations included a panel on the Unscripted Art of Cross-Examination, with illustrated video examples that

18

L to R – Justice Lang, Justice Venning, David O’Neill, Brendan Horsley

were enjoyed by all, a session on the Forgotten (perhaps) Art of Re-examination and an access to justice forum.

A presentation by Cameron Madgwick from the latter is reproduced on page 17.

This year’s conference introduced a number of side tours to give members a chance to relax and meet in social surroundings. These included fishing and skeet shooting, mountain biking, lake cruising, glass blowing demonstrations and golf. They were highly successful in spite of the dodgy weather.

You will be pleased to know that with the makeup of Bench v Bar in the final four, the Bar prevailed, winning on the 18th with sensational putting from the Deputy Solicitor-General (wild trouser guy). There are those who suggested that the Bar triumphing over the Bench was probably down to the trousers...

You would never guess that the trousers were noticed.

Finally, a special mention must be made of the awarding to Dr Jim Farmer QC of a Lifetime Membership for his contributions to the NZBA. The Association appreciates his work and support over the years and welcomed the opportunity to publicly recognise this.

The Golf Report from David O’Neill.

The inaugural NZBA Annual Conference Golf Tournament was held at Wairakei International. Well, we hope it is the inaugural tournament. Depending on where we hold our next conference...

This course is not the most forgiving, but our members strode off in confident style. It brought a tear to the eyes of those watching them leave [Sub Ed: those were tears of relief at getting them out the door without damage].

This year, there was much to play for. There was a car as a prize for a hole in one. This was kindly sponsored by Marsh (the insurance that is) and the car itself was supplied by Ebbett Audi from Hamilton. There is a bit of story around this.

We had been promised another European car but that didn’t happen after about 3-4 months of negotiation. We then turned to another European car distributor, but that failed also. In desperation, I thought I would try a phone call to the local Audi dealer in Hamilton. Five minutes later I had a car for the competition and also my ride down to Taupo. The vehicle was the very latest offering in the Q7 range (see more about this in Petrol Head’s Corner on page 28).

If there had been sufficient time to have a ceremony to mark the end of the golf, then the following people would have received awards: 1. The person who got the closest tee shot to the hole in one to win the car: Brendon Gibson – 3 feet away (probably the influence of his trousers).

2. Shortest drive off the first: Andrew Barker.

3. Wildest trousers: Brendan Horsley (Seriously – I thought he had nicked his Mum’s table cloth).

4. The person who bagged his fellow competitors the most: Richard Thompson (he insisted on his mates all playing with him and that way, he said to me, he wouldn’t be hit by a wayward shot).

5. Best round (I am reliably informed): Andrew Peterson.

Hopefully we will make this a permanent part of the Annual Bar Conference and, if I can swing it, will try and get a car there every year as a prize.

Mountain Biking Officially the mountain biking was called off due to the bad weather. Unofficially, a stalwart group grabbed their bagged lunches and set off to rendezvous in hostile territory [Sub ed: hostile territory is anywhere there is mud and no espresso machine]. Incidentally, in the photo below, the cyclists’ hands are not placed over their heads because they were all worried about their helmets falling off. Instead they are following Dr Sven Hansen’s advice that this increases testosterone. There are just so many things one can say in response to that...

Nespresso Anyone?

Bubbles? Sports bags? Books? Rugby balls...

Sponsors Marsh donated two Nespresso machines as prizes in a scratch card competition. The first prize was claimed at the conference by Jane Meares from Clifton Chambers, much to the disapproval of one QC (inter chambers rivalry possible?). However, said QC did not go away empty handed, having won a bottle of bubbly provided

by LexisNexis, and a sports bag. The second Nespresso Machine was claimed after the conference by Sarah Mandeno from Public Defence Service in Manukau and dropped off at her office.

In another notable win, Hamish Hancock from Wellington was the lucky winner of the rugby ball signed by the All Blacks and provided by AIG/Marsh and a text book from Thomson Reuters.

19

20

Financial Transitions

By Laetitia Peterson* What are the “big life moments” for lawyers and the resulting financial challenges?

In my first article, I talked about KiwiSaver as a method of creating funds for your retirement. I thought this would be a good starting point for the broader discussion on how to achieve financial independence as a lawyer. It seems fitting to wind back the clock and look at lawyers’ career transitions next and the challenges they face at each juncture.

Major life and career transitions jump out – a move to a new city or country, a new role or retirement, marriage and children, and, inevitably, the loss of loved ones. The tapestry of life as a lawyer can be exciting and invigorating.

Yet transitions, even if happy, can involve stress, evoke mixed feelings and affect us financially in tangible ways.

Buying your first home - the Kiwi dream According to the 60 plus lawyers I interviewed, young legal professionals don’t appear to be compromising their lifestyles to get on the property ladder early. Even allowing for two incomes (assuming they are married or in a serious relationship), the numbers do not stack up well and the change in home-ownership expectations is not surprising.

Apartment living is becoming more popular, as is moving back home with parents. The trend towards later marriage is also discernible in New Zealand. The median age for first-time grooms has risen to 30 years and for brides, 28 and a half years.

Then comes marriage - Happily ever after?

Marriage was often discussed as a major life event. Most did not identify marriage itself as having a significant financial impact, although some of the younger participants expressed concern at the expense (the average wedding in New Zealand costs $30,000). Another said marriage didn’t have a significant financial impact at the start but things changed when a spouse received an inheritance or became successful in his or her own right – combining incomes meant they were significantly better off as a couple. Discussions also included de facto and same-sex relationships, age differences between partners and the cost of having children.

Navigating rough times in relationships The next most common transition discussed with lawyers in their 40s and up was separation and/or divorce. One third of New Zealand couples divorce before their silver-wedding anniversary (25 years).

In my survey, 12.3 per cent had been through a divorce.

Most of the 12.3 per cent were remarried or in a de facto relationship, including those married multiple times. The advice to male lawyers was clear: “Marry your second wife first!” Many identified divorce as significantly impacting on personal finances. It can be an emotional and expensive transition for both parties, particularly when children are involved.

A few married lawyers quoting divorced friends or family members were adamant that “divorce is a bad investment”. Other more entrenched male views reflected the old adage of the GST wife (assuming the old GST rate of 12.5 per cent): • Marry your first wife and get a divorce; you are left with 50 per cent of your assets.

• Marry your second wife and get a divorce; you are left with 25 per cent of your assets.

• Marry your third wife and get a divorce; you are left with 12.5 per cent (this is the GST wife).

One married male lawyer took an interesting (albeit cynical) spin on divorce, “A personal financial goal should be that if your wife took half of everything you had, you should still have enough.” I took that to mean you should be prepared for the worst. To the question what would they change in life, divorced interviewees were not regretful, but wished they had not had to go through the parting process.

Researchers at Kansas State University recently surveyed 4,500 couples to examine how much financial well-being, financial disagreements and perceptions of finances contributed to the likelihood of divorce. The study found that regardless of how much money couples made, or were worth, arguing about money was by far the top predictor of divorce for men and women.

“Love is grand; divorce is a hundred grand” – Shinichi Suzuki The big OE and the stubborn New Zealand dollar Most lawyers had spent time working and living overseas, most commonly in their 20s and 30s in London, New York and Hong Kong. Many believed the experience had a positive financial impact long term. On relocation, however, several noted a significant negative financial impact on their salaries. Even with Pound Sterling savings and a higher deposit, the cost of returning and a pay cut didn’t make it any easier to enter Auckland’s competitive property market.

Younger lawyers then faced the challenge of how best to invest a lump sum.

The timing of returning funds to New Zealand is also critical, since currency fluctuations can make a big difference to spending power back home. The Pound

21

Sterling has fluctuated wildly and has dropped post-Brexit to its lowest point in over three decades. Depending on timing, your saved amount could have been less than doubled or almost quadrupled! This is purely the luck of the draw. Even the Reserve Bank watches our overvalued dollar powerlessly. It is also worth noting the tax consequences of leaving savings in a foreign currency to make a gain.

The cost of raising children The birth of a child can often mean the female lawyer is no longer able to work (whether as a lawyer or outside the legal profession) for at least a period of time. Dropping from two incomes to one requires sacrifices, especially when raising a young family. The adjustment can be stressful. Several female lawyers did not take extended time off, returning to work to pursue their careers. Others opted for consulting or part-time roles instead.

UK research found women graduates waited until an average age of 35 to have children. Delaying motherhood helps in the building of careers and securing a house of choice, but often at personal cost. Said Les Mayhew, Professor of Statistics at London’s Cass Business School, “Women who have children later in life may well have established their careers, but they also face the risk of becoming the ‘sandwich generation’ – looking after ageing parents or other relatives while also bringing up children.”

Education was a concern for those in their 20s and 30s, as opposed to those in their 40s and 50s with young children, for whom paying private school fees was no longer disproportionate to their income.

Tertiary education is typically the biggest education cost in New Zealand (as most children attend public schools) with the median student loan balance at around $14,000. Many surveyed lawyers had never had a student loan, but several younger lawyers who did, had managed to repay the amount before graduating.

However, this may be changing. A recent survey revealed that 83 per cent of students expect to be in debt by the time they graduate, with 73 per cent expecting that their student loan will have a significant impact on the ability to save for their retirement.

Most lawyers felt it important to give their children a head start, varying from a private school education, to paying for tertiary education, weddings, a deposit on a house, cash distribution from a family trust or simply the cost of adult children moving back home. However, offering children the chance to save for a deposit on a house by returning home can delay the parents’ ability to downsize.

22

Caring for elderly parents – “the sandwich generation” At some stage, the financial impact starts to reverse as children begin to look after ageing parents. For a number of lawyers, looking after elderly parents had coincided with supporting their children. Hence the expression the “sandwich generation”, as described earlier by Mayhew.

Many had experienced or expected to experience the death of a parent. However, not all saw such an event impacting in a financial sense, underscoring my observation that most lawyers do not come from particularly wealthy backgrounds.

One lawyer clarified the position with regard to the death of his mother. “It is not an inheritance at all she’s giving me,” he said. “She’s paying off a loan!”

I asked lawyers to specify the life events they expected to experience in the next 10 years. Many in their 40s anticipated the death of a parent in their 50s. However, of those currently in their 50s, only a handful identified such loss. Those in their 60s and 70s appeared to be experiencing parental bereavement at a much later stage.

The challenge of increasing life expectancy One of my most memorable conversations took place over coffee in a neighbourhood cafe with a retired lawyer in his 70s. His face lit up as he talked about his parents and the lovely life they still shared at ages 97 and 98. They had lived a frugal but happy life and now lived independently in a retirement home with no financial worries.

They didn’t have a lavish lifestyle, but were certainly no burden and he could see them living to 110 at the rate they were going!

This brought home to me the critical nature of planning for a long future, especially since some of the older superannuation schemes no longer exist and KiwiSaver contributions at current levels won’t be sufficient to provide for a comfortable retirement. Yet people still want to retire or be financially independent at 65. Soon we will be living longer in retirement than in our working lives.

No matter which stage you are at in life, lawyers want to call the shots. They want to be director, screenwriter, editor and, most importantly, executive producer. It takes a mighty bankroll to fund an epic production, such as your career, family and beyond. But as the scenes change, the fundamental production mantras remain the same – keep one eye on the budget, avoid costly reshoots and always have your Oscar™ acceptance speech ready. * Laetitia Peterson is a personal wealth adviser and is married to competition barrister, Andrew Peterson. She is now the CEO and founder of The Private Office, helping successful lawyers achieve the financial goals important to them and their families.

For more information see www.theprivateoffice.co.nz

Mentoring

By Janet Tuck* Mentoring provides an opportunity for professional growth and development, and a range of positive outcomes. Research tells us that these outcomes can apply to both mentees and mentors.

My own experience as a mentor back in 2000 will illustrate some key points.

When living in Hong Kong, I was asked by a friend to help her keep a charity project on track. Lee (not her real name) was a successful business woman. She was building an orphanage in China as a way to give something back, and the project had stalled. Lee asked for help to work out how to complete the project.

And thus began a series of conversations lasting about 18 months.

I wondered why Lee had asked me for help. I had no particular expertise in relation to building projects, I didn’t fully appreciate the challenge of building in one city while living in another, and I had very little experience of working in a Chinese context. I quickly learnt that her request had nothing to do with any knowledge or expertise I had other than: • • •

My availability My interest in Lee as a person My ability to ask some really probing questions and not let her get away with superficial answers

We set up an agreement about what we were going to do, and how we were going to do it and got started. Lee’s goals were to work out how to complete the build, to identify and explore options regarding what to do with the orphanage when it was finished, and find ways to establish a sustainable model to run it.

We met regularly, and conversations quickly began to delve much deeper into life and career issues. The outcomes of these conversations for Lee and myself serve to highlight many of the positive things you could expect to see from any mentoring relationship.

On returning to New Zealand late 2002, I received an email from Lee telling me that she had shifted her business from Hong Kong to the city where the orphanage is based.

Six months after that, she shelved her company to run the orphanage. And now her updates show her as a very happy orphanage Mama surrounded by 60 children.

The process really opened my eyes to see how powerful a mentoring relationship can be to a mentee. The opportunity to discuss and tease out a whole range of issues can lead to some significant decision making. It took a lot of courage for Lee to work with the questions and challenge her own thinking, but her commitment led to her making some very big and very rewarding decisions about her career and her life. The way in which we worked changed over time, and was very flexible and responsive.

I also gained a lot from the experience. I learnt about respecting cultural contexts in a tri-cultural conversationNZ culture, Lee’s home culture and Chinese culture. Lee was quite a formidable woman. She didn’t let me get away with anything. I enjoyed the challenge of reflecting after each session and working out what a ‘GameChanger’ question might be for our next meeting. The points of difference between us served us well, and it was okay to ask some really probing questions in a way only a New Zealander can. More than anything else, we had a lot of fun.

Based on my experience with Lee and with many others since, I can only endorse the positive outcomes from mentoring that research has identified.

What are some of these outcomes and what does a mentoring relationship actually look like?

The most common misconception about mentoring is that it is a formal, structured process where an older person gives advice to a younger person. The reality is that there are no hard and fast rules. The process with Lee evolved over time to suit the situation. Mentoring relationships can be very varied in terms their shape, content, and process.

Peer mentoring is a popular option, and it is becoming common to have a variety of mentors for different things.

Further Key Points • Don’t let perceptions about what mentoring ‘is’ or ‘isn’t’ keep you from putting your hand up. Mentoring can be very flexible in terms of expectations, structure, and delivery. A commitment of time and availability is important, but the format can be shaped and negotiated.

• Mentoring can deliver some significant outcomes and learning. A regular commitment to talk with someone can open up valuable opportunities for both professional and personal development. And eliminate some of the barriers between junior and senior professionals.

• Mentors get a lot out of the process. Many are surprised by the sense of satisfaction, and the things they learn. It is not only about a sense of obligation to give something back and help shape the next

23

generation of professionals.

• Seasoned professionals are not the only ones who can mentor. Mentors can come from outside a profession and from every level within it. It is important for a mentor to be able to ask good questions, and exercise active listening skills. The definitive, correct answer to every question is not always helpful or necessary.

• Mentoring occurs in both structured and less structured ways. There is value in both formal and informal mentoring. Thinking in more creative ways about the opportunities for mentoring, will lead to a wide range of opportunities. Don’t overlook informal conversations. Some of the most important

conversations I had with Lee occurred in airport transit lounges.

It was a tremendous privilege to mentor someone like Lee, and very rewarding. We both gained a lot from the experience. For anyone considering whether to be a mentor or seek mentoring, the opportunities are there to create something of real value, learn a lot of new things, and have some fun on the way. It is truly a win-win experience and your wider profession can benefit greatly. *Janet Tuck is a career specialist and director of the Career Clinic. For more information, see www.careerspecialists.org.nz

Arresting Your Teen’s Bad Behaviour

By Yvonne Godfrey* We all suffer from laziness and selfishness. It is human nature and teens especially are experts at getting the best deal in life (albeit at the expense of others)!

We generally ask two questions: 1. What’s in it for me? It doesn’t matter about anyone else.

2. How much can I get away with?

What is the bare minimum I can do?

The teen version is: • How late can I get up and still be on time for school?

• How messy can my room get before Mum does her nut?

• How little can I study and pass exams?

• How badly can I treat my parents and siblings and still get what I want?

Parents own worst enemy Many parents allow their teens’ lack of planning to become their emergency. They also do for their kids what they should be doing for themselves which exacerbates the problem and causes huge resentment in parents.

If allowed, teens think they are guests in this world rather than hosts – consumers and not contributors. They believe the world and more particularly their parents owe them!

Why is your teen aggressive, sneaky or antisocial?

Here are some contributing factors: 1. No dream or direction • Struggling with school and study

24

• Nothing to look forward to: could be depressed • Unsure of their strengths and gifts • Significant disappointment such as not passing exams or not being chosen for the team.

2. Broken relationships • Rejection (or perceived rejection) from a friend, someone they look up to or from you • Being bullied: lashing out in retaliation at anyone other than the bully • Heartbreak from a romantic relationship ending badly 3. Trauma • Divorce, death, injury, sickness or abuse • Big change: moving cities or a parent remarrying or moving in with their partner • Extreme pressure from school or friends: just cannot cope • Shame and guilt: hiding a secret 4. Weak character or living poorly • Attitude of entitlement: expects to get their own way • Lacks basic living skills • Never been taught how to resolve conflict in a non- violent way • Drugs or alcohol that alter their thinking patterns Now that you know what may be causing their bad behaviour, it is helpful to observe the methods they use to get what they want. These are not restricted to young people and often carry on into adult life. They may even

have learned their practices from you – just a thought!

Teens’ top dislikes of their parents

The following tactics might get results but will kill trust and weaken relationships. Parents who are badly treated usually feel demoralised and on guard. Their hearts simply become weary from parenting.

1. Nagging That consistent high pitched voice (usually Mum) who demands attention at the most inconvenient times. ‘I’ll do it my own time’, says the teen. History tells the parent that it won’t get done. Nagging just shows that you have no authority or have not explained yourself properly.

Teens ‘Standard Operating Practice (SOP)’ to get what they want When you know your teen’s strategies, you have a better chance of outsmarting them. On the flip side, you can do a lot of things to undermine your authority and cause teens to lose confidence in your parenting. The following table may ring some bells for you.

Message

SOP

‘I don’t like you’

Threaten to withdraw affection and approval if they don’t get what they want. This really hurts parents

Negotiate Down Start with a ridiculous or extravagant request and then ‘do parents the favour’ of downgrading it to what they really wanted in the first place.

Badgering

Wearing the parent down with the same request. How many ways and how often can you ask for the same thing? He who has the most stamina wins!

Loser

Make the parent feel like they aren’t in tune with the rest of the world. They might even tell lies about what ‘everyone else is allowed to do.’

Diversion

Create another problem so that the main one diminishes by comparison, and the parent is distracted from the real issue.

Blame

‘It is not my fault I’m in this terrible predicament.’ It is always everyone else’s fault. For example, they lost their cell phone down the toilet because the pockets on their pants were too big (not because they were as drunk as a skunk)!

Comparison

‘You should be grateful that I am not as bad as him or her!’ Compare themselves to someone who is just short of being an axe murderer.

Saviour

‘If you don’t rescue me I will be humiliated or disadvantaged. My future depends on you agreeing to my request’ – just another form of emotional manipulation.

Charmer or Con-artist

Temporarily pretends to be nice, compliant or attentive. But if they don’t get what they want, this ‘sucking up’ can turn into abuse in a heartbeat.

Quiet Destroyer

Passive aggression is when the they appear to be compliant and connected, but underneath they are scheming how to hoodwink the parent or how to retaliate in a way that cannot be pinpointed. Being habitually late or ‘forgetting’ to do what is asked are sometimes examples of passive aggressive behaviour.

2. Not clear on what parents expect They don’t know what they are supposed to do. Many parents just don’t communicate clear expectations. This complaint links closely to nagging. My advice is to ‘Be Fair, Be Clear and put it in Writing. This includes when and how you want a job done. Be very specific.

3. Inconsistent parenting ‘Some days Mum can be like Hitler in a skirt but other days she wants to be my friend. I never know which it will be.’

4. Unrealistic restrictions Teens hate being out of step with their friends. Some parents are too inflexible, but my experience is that teens will exaggerate what other people are supposedly allowed to do.

5. Their parents don’t trust them Teens think that once they have been punished for a misdemeanour that they should be back in a position of complete trust on that issue. They don’t understand that they can be forgiven in an instant but trust needs to be rebuilt over time.

What should you do when your teen acts up?

Always consider how you may have contributed to your teen’s bad behaviour. Have you indulged your kids or not expected enough from them? Are both parents divided in their approach? If so, don’t be afraid to ask for forgiveness if you feel you have let them down.

Remember that you are the parent, so don’t let your teen hold you hostage to the apology. At the same time, show compassionate leadership. If you are angry, calm down before dealing with your teen, and then approach them with a heart at peace rather than a heart at war. A heart at peace cares how the other person feels and is willing to listen to their side of the story, while making sure you don’t get sucked into any lies.

25

A heart at war sees only their own side of the argument.

It will objectify the other person and then ‘horribilizes’ that person to justify why you are right and good and they are wrong and bad. It is almost impossible to reach a win / win outcome if either person has a heart at war. Your kids may take this approach because they feel like the under-dog, trapped and unable to express themselves intelligently.

Ideally when your teen messes up, they fess up and then fix it up. Your job is to create an atmosphere where this can happen. Try not to let your ego get in the way. We’ve got too many young people not owning up and not being truly sorry (repentant), which means they cannot learn from the experience and be restored in relationship. This just adds layers of shame and guilt (or they could become more of a narcissist). The end result: they are disconnected from their parents and very often friends too.

What does the situation require?

Does your teen need an attitude adjustment, to be taught a skill or do they just need some parental wisdom to help with better decision making? Perhaps they need professional help. You cannot train what requires treatment!

Giving in and sweeping the problem under the rug is not going to help them, you or society, so think about where this pattern of behaviour will lead if left uncorrected. You may have to make a very hard call. Real love protects and perseveres with the truth and it always does what’s right (not convenient or popular) for the other person. Love doesn’t cover up lies.

If you are going to give a consequence think about how you will implement it before blurting it out. You look like a fool if you scream out a ridiculous consequence and then have no way of enforcing it. Respond with what is right but don’t retaliate. A heart at peace looks to the wellbeing of the person rather than gaining revenge.

Caution: If your teen is physically aggressive and you feel in danger, call the police immediately. * © Yvonne Godfrey 2016. Yvonne Godfrey is the founder and one of the facilitators of MIOMO (making it on my own) the 4- day Life Skills and Leadership Programme for young adults 16- 24 years. Yvonne has written a book, “Parenting Yadults” which contains help for those dealing with teens. For more information see her website. http://www.parentingyadults.com/

Got your NZBA App?

Newsletter

Phone

Website

MEMBER BENEFITS APP Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Download the NZBA app onto your smart device from the Google Play/App Store to take advantage of member benefits from nearly 50 suppliers.

Contact nzbar@nzbar.org.nz for more information.

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

Tap for more info

26 Tap for more info

Member Benefit Offer: Access the Resources of KPMG

By Kate Turska* As a new member benefit provider of the NZBA, KPMG Enterprise is pleased to offer their accounting expertise and support to members.

KPMG can provide tailored accounting services to suit all members - from new practitioners just starting out, through to well-established professionals requiring high-level advice.

However, KPMG New Zealand’s Enterprise division launched a new accounting service offering earlier this year, designed to “put the power of KPMG” behind SMEs and high-achieving professionals.

Paul McPadden (LLB) is a former tax lawyer who is the National Managing Partner for KPMG Enterprise. He explains the rationale behind the offering: “Whether you are running a business, or in practice – it is important to have confidence in your accounting practices and tax compliance. We wanted to make KPMG’s level of expertise available to all New Zealand businesses and professionals. Our Enterprise offering provides peace-of-mind tax compliance - as well as unlimited access to your KPMG accountant - all within a transparent, fixed monthly fee.”

Clients can also access the full breadth of advice and expertise across the KPMG network based on any additional needs they may have.

Affordable fixed monthly fees Depending on your needs, KPMG will tailor a package to suit. Core accounting services – including annual accounts, tax returns and IRD liaison – start from just $100 plus GST per month. Each client is assigned a dedicated KPMG accountant, and are encouraged to engage them by phone or email as often as need, at no extra cost.

To save you time and eliminate paperwork, packages also include online accounting software (Xero) in your monthly fee.

Paul McPadden says the packages will suit any practitioner who is looking for a hassle-free, professional accounting service; including those who are starting out on their own.

Additional services can easily be added as required – such as payroll, forecasting, financial audit, and practice income reviews.

“We also tailor packages for the larger or more complex practice, which can include regular reporting, audit and assurance, and high-level support and advice.”

KPMG can also assist clients with personal and family financial needs, including trusts, investment structures and tax planning.

Key features The key features of KPMG Enterprise packages include: •

•

•

•

Tailor made fixed monthly fee packages, starting from just $100 plus GST per month for core annual tax and compliance services; Every client is matched with a dedicated KPMG accountant to provide practical advice and assistance over the phone or e-mail at no extra cost; Online accounting tools are provided to eliminate paperwork, and save time - we set each client up with the right tools to work more efficiently and access better information, and provide full training at no additional cost; As required, KPMG can provide online tools for timesheets, invoicing, transaction processing, payroll etc to further streamline your processes.

Wider expertise & litigation support Additionally, NZBA members can take advantage of the firm’s full resources, networks and specialist expertise as required (additional fees quoted as applicable).

In New Zealand, KPMG has more than 1,000 professionals based throughout the country. The firm has offices in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton, Tauranga, Timaru and Ashburton.

Importantly, KPMG has a number of staff experienced in providing litigation support and expert witness services.

In particular, the firm’s Dispute Advisory Service (DAS) team provides advice and expert testimony in relation to business losses, valuations and accounting treatment for commercial claims, shareholder disputes, and business sale and purchase claims (e.g. breach of representation/warranty).

Director of DAS, Mike Lowe, is a contributing member of the Auckland District Law Society.

Exclusive offer to NZBA members NZBA members who on-board with one of our customised accounting and tax packages will receive the first two months free. Set-up, training and on-going support in Xero will also be provided free of charge. * Like to know more? Contact: Kate Turska (Relationship Manager) at kturska@kpmg.co.nz or 09 363 3528. www.kpmgenterprise.co.nz

27

Petrol Head’s Corner:

By David O’Neill*

This issue, our intrepid, environmentally dubious correspondent really does live up the saying “From the Sublime to the Ridiculous”.

The Sublime - Bentley Bentayga Sometime ago I hinted at a report on this car, probably in the optimistic and fervent wish that I might actually drive one.

My wish was granted when a friend of mine recently purchased one of these “little babies”. The use of the term “little” is probably relative, if you think along the lines of a Mack truck.

Purchasing a Bentley Bentayga in New Zealand probably puts you in one of the more exclusive categories of car owners. To put that into perspective, the erstwhile purchaser ordered the Bentley and was told that he couldn’t have it for some time (I think around 12 months), but in the meantime he could use one of their Bentley Mulsanne’s. It wasn’t a second-hand Mulsanne either.

It was a brand new one. To add to that he traded in his 3 year old 911 Porsche Turbo and his 2 year old Range Rover Autobiography.

To make it even more exclusive, this was the “First Edition” model so when you purchase it you also get a Breitling watch entitled “First Edition”. I didn’t even ask how much the Breitling watch was worth but I suspect it was limited to a very small number of people around the world who were rich enough to afford such a vehicle.

The car cost a trifling $550,000. The standard price is only $375,000 but having a First Edition takes you to another level. The purchaser was offered the opportunity of purchasing the optional extra of the picnic basket. His query about “why?” was met with “It is custom made for the boot, Sir”. When he asked the price, he was told it was $70,000 (just the picnic basket - seriously!).

Believe it or not I got to drive it. It has a W12 motor. That’s basically 2 V6 engines bolted together. It is the most expensive super-luxury SUV in the world and is also the world’s fastest production SUV topping out at 301 kmh (no idea

28

why, but I wasn’t allowed to go that quick).

According to the website, the word “Bentayga” was inspired by Taiga, which is the world’s largest snow forest and in Swahili (really) it means “carried interest”.

Apparently, there is also a mountain range called Roque Bentayga in the Canary Islands. Go figure. Quite why you would want to name a car after a mountain range or a snow forest is beyond me but anyway it is not for me to wonder why. I bet Bentley paid some advertising guru a fortune for coming up with the name.

When I first saw the car (I will call it that for ease of reference) in photographs, I wouldn’t have said that I was overly impressed. The front looked a little bit like Marty Feldman had modelled it after his own eyeballs. If any of you have ever seen Marty Feldman on the big screen or alternatively seen a Morgan Plus 8 you’ll know what I’m talking about.

In the flesh, however, it is a different story and looks far better than it appears in photos. It is a big car. It carries four passengers only. There is no way that junior can sit in the middle of the back seat unless he fancies sitting astride an instrument pod in the fold down centre arm rest.

It goes like stink - 4.1 seconds 0-100kmh.

It is 4 wheel drive and, as I have said before, tops out at 301 kmh. Believe it or not it really is quick: 4.1 seconds 0-100 kmh is quicker than most sports cars.

I think they knocked over several forests and a couple of herds of cows just to furnish the interior of this beast.

You probably need a tracker guide just to get through the carpet.

It is uber quiet with all the windows wound up but when you put your foot down it goes - very quickly.

If you look at the photographs you will see that it has what looks like chrome golf tee’s sticking out of the dashboard. These control air flow from the vents and are modelled on the original Bentley vent controls. They look slightly incongruous in the highly polished wooden dash surrounded by acres of fine leather with the latest electronic wizardry operating the vehicle.

I only had a short drive in it, only because the owner was about to leave to go elsewhere but nevertheless you couldn’t help but be impressed by the luxury, the quiet and the fact that you were driving the most expensive SUV on the planet.

The owner has a mountain in the South Island (yes really!). He decided that he would try and find out how good it really was in the rough and, believe it or not, took it for a blat over the mountain and says that it performed wonderfully well. It has a tonne of torque, plenty of grip and went pretty much anywhere that he wanted it to go.

This is a man who thinks that Land Rovers are pretty good at what they do and he reckons that this does it better but in more luxury.

If you want something that you can turn up to watch a couple of chukkas at your favourite polo ground in, then this is the wagon for you. You’ll impress the hell out of the Jones’ next door who will be in their very staid and poor cousin, the Range Rover, but you won’t mind because you won’t be able to hear them talk with the windows rolled up.

If you have got a spare half million dollars to spend then my advice is go for it but I think you’re going to have to wait some time because the waiting list in NZ is already 6 months long.

Audi Q7 – different but still sublime Earlier in this issue, I mentioned the incredible efforts of Ebbett Audi from Hamilton in supplying to us the latest Audi Q7. Having been let down on two occasions, I called them and five minutes later they had a car sorted for the Annual Conference hole in one golf competition and also my ride down to Taupo [Sub-ed: for more details on contacting Ebbett Audi Hamilton, please refer to the end of this article]. The vehicle was the very latest offering in the Q7 range. I have reported on this car previously. It is a huge vehicle, goes quick, runs on the smell of an oily rag and can swallow the family plus granny and grandpa.

Being a little bit bored with SH1 (and the gendarmes that inhabit it); I came down through the back road via Kihikihi, Mangakino and then the back road above the Western side of Taupo. It is a great road to drive with plenty of twists and turns, straights, dips and hollows and is a true test of the car’s agility.

While the Q7 is a large vehicle, it has been on a weightreduction programme with an increase in the power output from the 3L diesel. The combination is a dramatic improvement on the old Q7 and the car handles like a small vehicle with plenty of stonk under the bonnet.

Added to that is of course the usual bells and whistles that go with vehicles of this type and the ever-increasing driver aids which are making people like you and me somewhat redundant.

I had the car parked at the requisite prize hole. You can see a “sort of” photograph of the car with the Wairakei Club House in the background (see photo at page 18).

Unfortunately, it has been photobombed by four randoms standing on the 10th tee hoping that they will actually get the ball onto the green and into the hole. Fear not - the car was safe. You can see what I mean by the trousers on the bloke on the right.

My thanks go to Ebbett Audi for helping us out at the last minute with a vehicle without any fuss at all. I have to say from personal experience that they are equally as good to deal with when you are looking to buy a car.

For more information see their website: www. ebbettaudi.co.nz The other test drive No car review/Petrol Head’s Corner could be complete without reviewing every vehicle that I drove. On the golf round at Wairakei we were told that we had to use golf carts.

Now I have to say that as test drives go, this wouldn’t have been described as the most exciting (that is except

29

for the wild trousers on the bloke sitting beside me). The vehicle carries two people, two sets of golf clubs and a truckload of batteries. It makes a beeping noise when you stick it in reverse and is pretty much open to the elements.

In approaching the beast, I wondered where all the protective gear was so I figured it wasn’t for the Americans. It was in fact made and developed in New Zealand.

When you go to the website and click on features, they show things like: • Headlights • Rear vision mirror • Charging port for your Apple phone • Tee and ball holders together with drink holders and rolled up flannels • Comfy two-person seat (I’m getting all overcome with all these features…….)

When you go to the photo gallery, they have a veritable plethora of photographs of golf carts parked beside greens, trees, bunkers and tees and there’s even one with blurred scenery in the background which suggests the golf cart is hopping along at a fairly high speed. To be absolutely blunt, I could walk faster than this thing but that didn’t matter.

Anyway, I approached this little baby with some trepidation, slid myself quietly into the seat and familiarised myself with the controls. These compromised the on-off key and the forward/backward gear button.

The two pedals on the floor were for the accelerator and the brake so I gently pushed my foot down on the accelerator and nothing happened.

I thought something had broken so I jammed my foot to the floor at which point it lurched into life and shot off down the tar seal driveway to the hole at a rapidly high rate of knots then proceed to drop back to walking pace.

I think these things are governed by some sort of speed controller to ensure that idiots like me don’t try and rip the fairway up at high speed.

The clubs are usually carried strapped in but my erstwhile companion decided that he would try to see if the clubs could balance themselves in the car. Consequently we proceeded to leave the club house with a great flourish

30

as the clubs fell off the back and crashed onto the tarseal driveway.

Once we had that little problem fixed (and they were still staring at his pants as we left), we managed to get to the first hole without any further incident.

It was a great test of the vehicle’s ability to go up and down hills, mainly because we fired the ball in all directions and it was wet. It had great traction and great torque.

I can’t give you any performance figures here except to say that: • • • • • •

It goes up hills It goes down hills It stops It goes backwards It goes forwards 0-100 kmh – does not compute.

It doesn’t get much over about 15 kmh.

That is the end of the golf cart review. I will leave it to you to decide which vehicle, of the three that I have reviewed here, to drive. I imagine you will probably get the golf cart one day, the Q7 possibly one day and anybody who strikes Lotto can go and buy themselves a Bentley.

This is my final column for 2016 and so I will end by wishing you all a happy holiday season and safe travel on the roads. I look forward to seeing you in 2017. * When he is not being a barrister, David O’Neill is a motoring enthusiast and competition driver. His reviews are published in other (less important, of course) publications and websites.

The NZBA would like to thank Ebbett Audi Hamilton for its help with supplying the car for our golf competition.

Ebbett Audi (07) 903 2240 490 Grey St Hamilton East 321 Contacts: Chris Loader 021 059 5379 James Jones 021 969 900 | Aiden Barr 022 694 1377

Events Lucy Cornell Voice Workshop – 30 August 2016

Stuart Grieve QC, Jane Montgomery, Anne Toohey and Lucy Cornell

Karen Feint, Vivienne Crawshaw and Peter Davey

Anoushka Bloem, Daisy Williams and Philip Cornegé

Annual Conference, 16 and 17 September 2016, Taupo

Robert Lithgow QC, Jane Meares and Peter Castle

From LexisNexis: Jennifer Berthier, Merv Giam, Phil Goodacre, Matt Pedersen, Stephen A’Court and Andy Boss

Trevor Shiels QC, Dr Ashley Thomas, Trunelle Massyn, Edith Te Whata, and James Buckle

Henry Kosima and Anne-Marie Healy from ThomsonReuters

Andy Watkins, Helen Condon and Justin Nidd from Marsh

Prof. Chris Gallavin, Helen Coutts and Steve Keall

Michael Hewes from Sovereign

Gretta Schumacher, Garry Williams, Lara Mannis and Josh McBride

Julia Adams, Tiho Mijatov, Alex Carswell and Mike Lowe

31

Vanessa Bruton QC and Antonia Fisher QC

Clive Elliott QC, Greg Hollister-Jones, Brendan Horsley and Peter Castle

Madeleine Laracy, Bill Nabney, Rita Nabney, Jane Meares and Rob Stevens

Hamish Hancock and Lisa Hansen

Andrew Barker, Alan Galbraith QC and Jenny Cooper

Andrew and Laetitia Peterson and John Billington QC

Sarah Andrews, Andrew Gilchrist, John Mather and Toni McKee

David Marriott, David Neutze, Suzanne Robertson and Bill Manning

Paul Radich QC and Karen Radich

The Conference dinner at the Taupo Yacht Club

32

Anthony Rogers, Desmond Wood, Robert Lithgow QC and Dale Lester

Simon Foote

Dr Jim Farmer QC receives his Life Membership Award from NZBA President, Clive Elliott QC

Dr Farmer’s acceptance speech

Dinner speaker Justice Denis Clifford

Nick Chisnall and Peter Davey

Alex Carswell, Stephen Laing, Gretta Schumacher, Julia Adams and Tiho Mijatov

John Billington QC and Justice Lang

Bill Manning and Mark Kelly

Madeleine Laracy, Richard McGuire and Brendan Horsley

James Buckle, Rabindra Roy, Sabine Melese and Edith Te Whata

Tania Brittain and Vicki Scott

Suzanne Robertson, Mark Kelly, and Lisa Hansen

James Every-Palmer, Tiho Mijatov and Simon Judd

33

Wellington Silks’ Dinner, Royal Port Nicholson Yacht Club, 27 October 2016

Paul Michalik, Pam Churchman, Peter Churchman QC and Michael Lennard

David Laurenson QC, Lauchie Griffin and Nigel Hughes

Paul Morten, Robert Lithgow QC and Craig Stevens

Matthew McClelland QC and Paul Radich QC

Hon. Alan MacKenzie and Karen Radich

Richard Fowler QC, Lisa Hansen and Chris LaHatte

Toby Gee, Kim Murray and Les Taylor QC

Justice Wild, Justice Ellis, James Gardner-Hopkins and Becky Prebble

The 2016 Silks – Victoria Casey QC, John Prebble QC, Una Jogose QC and Kenneth Johnston QC

34

Auckland Silks’ Dinner, Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron, 1 November 2016

Stuart Grieve QC, David Williams QC and Dr Jim Farmer QC

David Bigio QC, Ewa Bigio and Stephen Langdon

Margaret Casey QC, Sean Maloney, Mark Vickerman, Justice Fogarty and Lisa La Mantia

Robert Fisher QC, Vivienne Crawshaw, Lady Deborah Chambers QC and Hon. John Priestley QC

Paul McKendrick, Stephen Mills QC, Jane Anderson QC and Mitch Singh

Vanessa Bruton QC, Gillian Coumbe QC and Miriam Dean QC

Ruby Haazen and Claudia Farry

Justice Hinton, Gillian Coumbe QC and Davey Salmon

Kieran Raftery QC, Robert Hitchin and Aaron Perkins QC

Jason Haggitt, Jenny Cooper, Clive Elliott QC and Suzanne Robertson

Russell Bartlett QC, Wendy Andrews, Adam Ross and Marie Wisker

Christine Nolan, Derek Nolan QC and David Heaney QC

Kerry Fulton, Bob Hollyman and Andrew Barker

Daniel Nilsson, Eugene St John, David Bigio QC and Tim Mullins

Welcome from NZBA Presdient, Clive Elliott QC

35

2013-2014 COUNCIL CONTACT DETAILS

2016 - 2017 COUNCIL CONTACT DETAILS CLIVE ELLIOTT QC – President Ph: +64 9 307 1769 elliott@shortlandchambers.co.nz’ JENNY COOPER Ph: +64 09 309 1769 jcooper@shortlandchambers.co.nz PETER DAVEY Ph: +64 9 309 0475 peter@davey.co.nz JOHN DIXON Ph: +64 9 306 2775 john.dixon@shortlandchambers.co.nz JONATHAN EATON QC - Vice President Ph: +64 3 372 3466 j.eaton@bridgesidechambers.co.nz SIMON FOOTE Ph: +64 9 307 8784 swbf@simonfoote.co.nz LISA HANSEN - Vice President Ph: +64 4 914 1052 l.hansen@barristerscomm.com GREG HOLLISTER-JONES Ph: +64 7 928 6202 g.hollister-jones@rhjl.co.nz DALE LESTER Ph: +64 3 366 1465 dale@canterburychambers.co.nz LARA MANNIS Ph: +64 9 600 5509 lara@richmondchambers.co.nz JANE MEARES Ph: +64 4 974 5952 jane.meares@cliftonchambers.co.nz TIHO MIJATOV Ph: +64 4 472 9025 tiho.mijatov@stoutstreet.co.nz

DAVID O’NEILL – Treasurer/Vice President Ph: +64 7 839 1745 david.oneill@nzbarrister.com PAUL RADICH QC Ph: +64 4 974 5951 paul.radich@cliftonchambers.co.nz GRETTA SCHUMACHER Ph: +64 9 309 1769 gschumacher@shortlandchambers.co.nz DEAN TOBIN Ph: +64 3 477 8781 dean.tobin@princeschambers.net

36