Jobs for the 'boys' and just to prove non-sexist for the 'girls' as well.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10875909

First of all we heard that Fisher's 'peer review' (a lofty description by any view where an underling reviews the work of somebody higher on the Judiciary tree) cost the tax payer $200,000. Now it is revealed that the report actually cost double that amount and that a second lawyer was involved (another underling 'peer' no doubt) and an even more worthy 'peer,' if your Irish, a lowly (or is that highly) law clerk as well. Readers will no doubt be surprised that no spouses, relations or even mothers of the 'peers' were involved, but wait a minute a woman in a relationship with Fisher (a law student) was actually the law clerk mentioned above. She was paid $100 per hour. I wonder what legal aid lawyers, fully qualified and working in jury trials think about that after a years of being financially 'screwed down' over fees. I don't know the answer to that of course but I do suspect somebody is being screwed and that money is changing hands.

The Minister when asked about the fees, which in fact are approximately the same for the whole years work that Binnie completed on his report, said that she had no interest in the personal life of Mr Fisher or anyone else that provides professional services to the Ministry of Justice. Fair enough too, personal lives are one thing but public money is another, particularly in tough economic times. I recall the Minister implying that Binnie was trying to milk more money out the Ministry at a time when it appears she was trying to do her best to discredit him, however time has shown such allegations were completely untrue. So in fact the Minister is interested in how much money is spent by the Ministry, which in fact is part of her job unless it is of course 'jobs for the good and compliant girls and boys' who can charge what they like.

Perception is everything and one could easily perceive that Fisher 'sensed' that he could charge what he liked and employed the most substandard help as long as he produced a report that the Minister was happy with. Double standards abound, the Minister wrongly implied that Binnie was overcharging for 12 months work but has no comment on a few weeks work by Fisher employing everybody but the family dog and  charging as though his life depended on it. Who knows Tolmie Bowden might be a legal superstar in the making, she might have the potential to become an international jurist holding great respect throughout the world, but potential compared to reality are hardly in the public interest in a country in it's 5th year of tough fiscal times.

A 'peer review'  ordered by a fiscally aware Minister? Doesn't look like it. This is the same Minister who chose to take a maternal role of what were the best interests of David in terms of Binnie's review. Matters of which were both none of her business and patronizing to the extreme. Well how about some patronizing comment on the 'good judgement' of Fisher to employ his partner and what some have said is a rare rate to be achieved by an unqualified lawyer. Suddenly the shoe becomes on the other foot, the Minister happy to meddle in the life of someone whose life is of no business to her but careful to be silent on the personal situation of somebody who at the very least has been paid very handsomely and without concern for what the public might think of this cosy relationship which looks more and more like mutual back scratching.

A little more from the details: publishing costs? $20,000? Sounds like a rip off to me. A top quality printer is no more than $2,000, printing paper is penny cheap and even a semi qualified dunny cleaner would know how to push the print button. I'd genuinely expect somebody being paid $100 per hour would not only be able to push the print button but be able to top up the paper as it was used, and job done in 5 hours, all costs included $2,500. But the Minister doesn't seem interested in that either. I guess it's too personal.