Speaker by Various Artists

9

The Voyage: Full Steam ahead

by Rick Boven on the Voyage of a Lifetime

Today's post by Rick Boven is the first in a series from the speakers at The Voyage of a Lifetime, a seminar about economic imperatives and alternatives, being staged on Sunday, June 10 at Auckland's Q Theatre by the New Zealand Fabian Society, Public Address and Scoop.

You can read the press release for the event here. Unfortunately, as things stand you can't actually go unless you've already RSVPd -- the passage is fully booked!

But you can register your name on a wait list at the event website -- and on the day you'll be able to follow the proceedings live on Ustream.

And, of course, you're very welcome to comment here on this preview of his talk. So, over to Rick:

In 1800, there were around 800 million people on the Earth.  The average income was about US$800 in today’s money.  Technology development, energy from fossil fuels and global trade allowed rapid economic development that resulted in the advanced global economy that provides the abundant goods and services New Zealanders enjoy today.

Now there are over 7 billion people and the average global income is about US$8,000.  The economy is about 60 times as big as it was in 1800.  With current trends there will be 9 to 10 billion people in 2050 and the economy will be four times bigger than it is today.

Technology, fossil fuels and trade allowed us to exploit our environment so efficiently that the physical environment was not a constraint.  In modern conventional economics, capital and labour are the recognised constraints and the environment is assumed irrelevant.

But the economy is now so large that it is putting a lot of strain on the environment.  Emissions from fossil fuels are changing the atmosphere, resource costs are increasing rapidly and many important ecosystems are in decline.

The world’s leading climate scientists have convinced the world’s leaders that global warming must be limited to two degrees above the 1910 level and there are many discussions taking place.  But there is no global agreement yet and emissions continue to rise unchecked. 

Around 80% of the world’s energy is from fossil fuels and the prices for energy and other important commodities such as food and minerals rose rapidly in the last decade, reversing a long term downward trend.

The world must now reduce emissions from fossil fuels to avoid disruptive climate change while the world’s leaders also want to ensure the economy is well supplied with energy and other commodities to sustain economic growth.

I will explore what some important global environmental trends will mean for us here in New Zealand at the Voyage of a Lifetime event held at the Q Theatre in Auckland on the 10th of June. 

Rick Boven is a Director at Stakeholder Strategies

45

Damien Hirst: the dollars and sense?

by Graham Reid

Say what you like about British artist Damien Hirst, and everyone from international art critics to London cabbies does, he certainly pulls a crowd. At the Tate Modern in London, the queue of those waiting to see his famous For the Love of God – his 2007 platinum cast of a skull encrusted with diamonds, teeth model's own – was of Disneyland length.

And those attending his first major retrospective which runs until September 9 and takes over one floor of the gallery space above represented every possible demographic, speaking a dozen different languages, sometimes in hushed voices as they expressed their admiration or derision of the works. Effervescent French schoolkids and immaculately dressed snootycrats from the art cognoscenti sniffed the air at a large glass cubicle in which thousands of blowflies buzzed round the bloody and severed head of a cow or were zapped into a pile of black bodies by the electrocuting lamp.

Another day of life, death and voyeurism in the world of contemporary art.

A retrospective of Hirst -- born in 1965 and whose first major work coincided with the cocky swagger of Britpop – allows the casual and the critical observer the opportunity to separate the mere bagatelles from the genuinely worthwhile. And there have been plenty of both in Hirst's career, as notable for headlines and banalities as for the latent power, rare beauty and genuine significance of some work.

There's little to be said about What Goes Up Must Come Down from 1994 – a ping pong ball held aloft by the air from a hairdryer – but then there are whole rooms of installations and stand-alone work which are commanding.

In the same year, 1988, as he was offering primitively arranged and poorly rendered multi-coloured boxes (Boxes, an unusually simple title from a man who came to recognise the associative power of naming), Hirst was embarking on a series which was thought-provoking and undeniably possessed of a strange beauty.

His Medicine Cabinets – detailed arrangements of pharmaceutical packages, pill bottles and other contents of chemist shop shelves – say something about the age of dependency, pain relief and the familiarity of self-medicating. One whole room of these – with museum-like displays of highly polished surgical equipment – offers an almost overpowering sense of the chilling and orderly clinicalness of the modern era.

His collections of various species of fish in formaldehyde-filled glass cases within larger cabinets are mesmerisingly quiet even though they evoke activity, and the idea reaches its zenith in medicine cabinets where facsimiles of pills or discerning displays of cigarette butts elevate the mundane into objects of study in visual rhythms like a musical score or a wall of arcane hieroglyphics.

The installation In and Out of Love is a humid, temperature-controlled room of living (and dying) butterflies slows the pace to allow for a concentration on the creatures' fragile beauty and the transience of life, although also raises “the zoo question” by the very nature of its creation.

But undeniably impressive are the mandala and stained-glass window designs referenced in the massive, symmetrical arrangements of butterfly wings.

Then there are the big ticket item: the sharks, the bisected cow and calf, and sheep suspended in formaldehyde. While the massive shark (not the original in The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, that one rotted)

has its power both magnified and constrained, the sheep (one black, one white) are gentle memento mori, their solitariness spotlighting individuality and beauty seen only when split from the herd, perhaps a useful metaphor when people desperately Facebook their every waking thought in the hope of acknowledgment of their uniqueness.

Hard to believe however, that this is same Hirst who offers up the gimmicky Spin Paintings – massive canvases rotated at speed and with paint dropped on them to create abstract patterns. They were called dabstracts when you made your own for a couple of dollars at the Easter Show. And his Spot Paintings – multicoloured dots in random order on small or wall-filling canvases – can be infuriatingly inconsequential or impressive by virtue of their size. However all are watery and vapid in the comparison with the work of Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama's dot-filled installations – as anyone who saw her Wellington City Gallery exhibition in 2009 would attest – in another space in the Tate Modern.

And this is the dichotomy of Hirst's work, the mediocre alongside the meritorious in the same intellectual landscape. Both, he seems to suggest, are of equal weight.

That skull however – tellingly given a separate space which invites queuing as at the tomb of an Egyptian pharaoh or an embalmed communist leader – is another matter.

Billed as one of his most iconic works, it is a description which invites analysis. If an icon is something which has power and meaning beyond itself – and not in the debased current usage of well known – then what does the astutely titled For the Love of God stand for?

Like much of Hirst's best work, its value is inherent and associative simultaneously.

The worth of Hirst's work became about the numbers, fitting in the commodity trading, hyper-inflated art market in which he lives. He has been a market leader, his work snapped up by investors and his reputation pumped by those in whose best interests it was to see the market primed: curators, dealers, corporate collectors and other parasitic fish swimming around the Great White Hirst.

It is easy, and right, to be sceptical about all this at which Hirst's art is the epicentre.

The retrospective – selective of course – gives enough ammunition to the cynical.

The headlines about the skull – priced at US$100 million, a sum it failed to sell for – meant it commanded as much attention in the Business section as it did in Arts.

No art work however should be evaluated by the obscenely inflated price the market or in this case, the artist, has place on it. Hirst accepted, encouraged, manipulated and fed that voracious world, but in one small sense he has also been its victim.

The reproduction on tee shirts, posters and a gift shop full of cash'n'carry Hirst detritus (hoodies, coffee cups, skateboards, umbrellas and all the rest bearing his imprint) means the power of some work is tragically trivialised.

Nothing can prepare you for the breathtaking beauty of that diamond encrusted skull, displayed in a darkened room under lighting which illuminates its glittering surface and multiple meanings.

Damien Hirst, the enfant terrible and sometimes terrifique, doubtless knows it: the astonishing For the Love of God resonates like a holy artifact in an unholy age.

Graham Reid of www.elsewhere.co.nz flew to London with assistance from Cathay Pacific and Visit England.   

107

How's that three strikes thing working out, anyway?

by Paul Brislen

Remember the awful parliamentary debate (sorry, "debate") about copyright that ended in an amendment to the Copyright Act? How we all wailed about the futility of it all and the ridiculous "three strikes" process? Well it's not over yet.

The only thing that stands between us and that foolish piece of legislation is the fee the rights holders have to pay the ISPs to investigate their claims of copyright infringement and currently the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) is reviewing how much it should cost.

Clause seven of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations 2011 allows an ISP to charge rights holders up to $25 for processing a rights owner notice. Currently the Ministry of Economic Development  is reviewing the costs involved and it’s vital we all make a submission. Allow me to explain.

The Copyright Act makes it quite clear: copying a TV show, movie, piece of music, book, game, software application or anything like that is a no-no and copyright rights holders have the legal right to challenge you on it if you do.

If you do it once, you get a letter warning you about your breach. If you do it again, you get another letter. Do it a third time and you could face the Copyright Tribunal. I say “could” because you don’t actually get to face them unless you want to – they’re perfectly happy to do it all by email and you’ll get a fine of up to $15,000 which presumably you can pay with your credit card so you can collect the air points.

How does the rights holder know you’ve copied a file? They are merrily seeding software out there in copyright theft land (the torrents, even though we’re all now shifting to “magnets” and if you want to know more you’ll have to buy a friendly geek a beer) so that they can catch you when you begin to share a file. Although the law applies to all copying, they only care about the torrents because they can’t readily police anything else, which is interesting.

The rights holders then have to fill in a form outlining all the various details (time, date, IP address and so forth) and send it off along with $25 to the ISP that is responsible for that particular IP range. The ISP then checks the information and, assuming it’s all correct, sends out the appropriate notices.

These are minor details in that they’re easy to get right if there is real evidence of offending. What this “minor detail” does, however, is stop the rights holders from going on some kind of extended fishing expedition, shotgunning out notices left right and centre hoping to catch someone who’s feeling guilty, something they seem willing to engage in overseas.

The other way we stop the snowstorm of notices being issued is by allowing the ISPs to charge a fee for the collection and verification of this information. The rights holders suggested they might, reluctantly, be willing to pay a few cents towards the cost of the stamp (or similar) for these letters – the ISPs said it would be closer to $40 per notice if not more should they have to do it manually. The government settled on $25.

Twenty five dollars isn’t a lot when you think about the price of a TV show or a movie.  If I’d invested $200 million in a film then $25 wouldn’t seem too great a burden to pay for protecting my rights, however to date not a single notice has been issued with regard to a TV show or movie. Not one. The rights holders have tried all kinds of things to reduce the fee – they’ve tried to get individual ISPs to sign up to a process whereby the rights holders will do all the processing and so the cost per notice will come down dramatically. But one of my sources tells me the rights holders want the ISPs to sign a non-disclosure agreement before they even discuss it, and no ISP will do that.

The rights holders are also avoiding talking to the industry en masse (via a mechanism like the Telco Carriers Forum of which I’m a board member) but instead will only approach this on a one-off basis. Again, the ISPs are (to their credit) standing tall and won’t enter into discussions without the rest of the industry. More recently, I’ve been told the rights holders have begun approaching IT vendors to build this processing capability and is trying to get them to sell it in to the ISPs, but again the ISPs smell a rat and won’t go near it.

The reason the ISPs are reluctant to get involved is simple – cost.

The ISPs in New Zealand know that if they reduce the price of the fee to cents per notice, they’ll be sent tens of thousands of notices a month and regardless of how much processing the rights holders take on board, it’s the ISPs that will bear the brunt of it. And as you know, if an ISP sees an increase in costs, it is we the users who will ultimately pay the price.

So not one notice about TV or movies but also not a single notice has been sent relating to copying of New Zealand content. Not one.

The rights holders in New Zealand put together an ad campaign based on the destruction of value of New Zealand content, yet it hasn’t defended a single New Zealand artist. I find that very interesting – from a PR point of view it’s a massive cock-up because at the very least they could have found one to point to. Either they don’t care enough to pay $25 or there simply isn’t any piracy of New Zealand artists going on in New Zealand. Isn’t that an interesting thought?

The MED review allows for public submissions on its discussion document but comments must be received by 30 April. Have a look at the document and send any thoughts you may have to the MED here.  Because despite its obvious flaws, as far as I can tell the Copyright Act is working – it’s the US-based rights holders that aren’t.

Paul Brislen is the CEO of the Telecommunications Users Association (TUANZ) which lobbies on behalf of end users of telecommunication services.

19

Censorship is not the only enemy of free speech

by The Law Commission

This is the third and last of our series of blog posts from the Law Commission, which continues to seek feedback on and discussion of its Review of Regulatory Gaps and the New Media issues paper. It follows on from the posts Who are the media? and Who guards the guardians?. You are warmly invited to engage in discussion of this post and the previous two (which remain live). Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the posts.

---

Robust communication has been a hallmark of the internet since its inception. Free speech values and an abhorrence of censorship are central to its culture.

However, censorship is not the only enemy of free speech. Those who exercise their free speech to intimidate, bully, denigrate and harass others on the internet lessen the credibility of free speech arguments. In effect, those who exercise their free speech rights to cause harm may inhibit others from participating freely in this vital new public domain. The practical anonymity afforded abusers, and the lack of real-life consequences can create an environment where such abusive behaviour can thrive.

But cyberspace is not the “wild west” as sometimes alleged. User-generated content online is subject to the same legal constraints as offline communication. In addition many content hosts and publishing platforms have highly developed systems which empower users to self-moderate within the context of agreed community standards. The read/write culture of the web provides unprecedented opportunities for rebuttal and counter argument.

The third leg of our terms of reference (view summary document) required us to look at the type of problems which are emerging within the web environment, including issues like cyber-bullying, harassment and defamation in social media, and ask whether the law can be better adapted to this new publishing environment and whether the courts are the best forum for resolving these sorts of disputes between free speech and rights to privacy, reputation etc.

The advice we received in the course of our preliminary consultation suggested that the legal constraints and remedies that were designed for the pre-digital era were not always well suited to the challenges of the new publishing environment. (view chapter 7 at 7.37) Similarly, consumer education and advice organisation NetSafe, told us that user reporting systems are not always providing appropriate or effective remedies for people who are experiencing significant harms as a result of malicious communications.  And even though the web provides those who are harmed by abusive speech the opportunity to exercise their right of reply, not all have the courage or the standing to exercise it.

In chapter 8 of our Issues Paper we put forward a two-pronged approach to dealing with these problems.

The first prong involves reviewing the statute book to ensure the types of serious speech harms arising from digital communication are covered by appropriate offences and that existing speech laws can be readily applied in the digital environment. With respect to enforcement we ask whether there should be a statutory power in the courts to make take-down or cease-and-desist orders, and whether such a power should be available against avenues of communication such as ISPs or website hosts even though they themselves are not legally parties to the wrong doing.

Such a power would need to be carefully circumscribed and qualified and would only be exercised in cases where there had been a breach of the law; where that breach had caused, or was likely to cause, demonstrable distress, humiliation or harm; and after proper consideration of whether the order was a justified limitation on the Bill of Rights Act guarantee of freedom of expression.

We emphasise that we are not proposing that ISPs should be legally responsible for anything which they transmit in the sense that they could incur sanctions. Nor are we suggesting that website hosts should be liable to greater legal responsibility than they were before. The proposal is simply that they could be subject to a court order to remove illegal material. (view Chapter 8 at 8.36)

However we recognise that law reform will only go so far in addressing harmful speech in the digital era. The courts are heavy machinery for many people. A distressed victim or a young person may not wish to give evidence in court. Pursuing a civil remedy in court may be expensive, time consuming and distressing. 

In many cases, those who have been the victim of harassment or bullying or whose reputations have been unjustifiably damaged, simply wish for the activity to stop or for the offending material to be removed. And yet often, as we discuss in chapter 7, these people feel they have no avenue of complaint or means of redress.

In chapter 8 of our Issues Paper we put forward for discussion two alternative options for new mechanisms for dealing with harms arising from speech abuses:

  • A  Communications Tribunal that would operate at a level lower than the court system and which could administer speedy, efficient and relatively cheap justice to those who have been significantly damaged by unlawful communications.

The Tribunal would only deal with cases where it determined there had been a breach of the law. It should not be a port of call for those with insubstantial complaints.

Harm must have resulted or be demonstrably likely to result. That harm might be financial, or might be psychological harm such as distress, intimidation, humiliation or fear for safety. 

It would not have the power to impose criminal sanctions. Only the courts should be able to enter convictions and impose criminal sanctions such as fines and imprisonment.

Sanctions and remedies available to the Tribunal would include the ability to award monetary compensation up to a prescribed level; to order publication of an apology or correction; to order that a right of reply be granted; to order that the defendant cease the conduct in question (a type of injunction); and to make take-down orders against either the perpetrator or an innocent avenue of communication such as an ISP. It might also make a declaration that statements made about the victim are untrue. Failure to comply with an order would be an offence. 

The second option we put forward for discussion is the establishment of Communications Commissioner, possibly attached to the Human Rights Commission.

The Commissioner’s role would of this person would be to provide information and where possible assist in resolving problems in an informal manner, for example through mediation.

In cases of serious harm, the Commissioner may refer a complainant to the police. In other cases, many of the harms that we have discussed could be resolved informally by contacting a website administrator to draw their attention to objectionable material, identifying the harm the post is causing, or how it may be in breach of the law.

We are interested in your views of the strengths and weaknesses of these various preliminary proposals, and in particular your responses to the following questions posed in the Issues Paper:

  • How serious a problem do you think speech abuses are on the internet? E.g. cyber-bullying and harassment, harms to reputation or invasions of privacy. (View chapter 7)
  • How effective are the non-legislative remedies that operate within online communities, including the systems of online reporting employed by social media sites such as Facebook? (View chapter 7 at 7.144)
  • Do you think the law is currently able to deal adequately with these sorts of damaging speech when they occur on the internet? (View chapter 7.60)
  • Do you think there is merit in giving the courts the power to issue take- down orders in cases of serious harm arising from illegal conduct?
  • Do you support the idea of an alternative tribunal able to provide speedy and efficient remedies for those who have been harmed by an offence on line? (View chapter 8 at 8.43)

---

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:

This discussion is being advertised across several new media websites - guests to Public Address are very welcome but please refer to the ruleshere.

This discussion is part of the Law commission’s consultation on their issues paper “The News Media meets ‘New Media’ : rights, responsibilities and regulation in the digital age. I.E. your comments below may be taken into account when the Law Commission writes its final report on Media Regulation issues. The discussion will be moderated, however this moderation will be in accordance with the normal rules of moderation in this forum.

 Several other things follow from this:

 1. The Law Commission may participate in the discussion.  Any comments it makes in this forum should be regarded as provisional as the Commission will not finalise its policies and recommendations to government until it tables its final report which is expected at the end of 2012.

 2.  Parts or all of this discussion may be archived as part of the official record of this Issues Paper Consultation (Practically this means that  if you change your mind on something then you are encouraged to say so and explain why - otherwise your initial view may be interpreted as a kind of submission).;

3.  This discussion may be subject to the Official Information Act - and certainly any remarks made by the Law Commission will be; The Law Commission encourages all participants to also make formal submissions to the Law Commission here.  If you form an opinion on these issues as a result of reading the discussion in this thread then please share that with the Commission directly if you wish.

 - The Law Commission and Russell Brown (Host and publisher of Public Address)

28

Who guards the guardians?

by The Law Commission

This post is the second in a series authored by the Law Commission and published here as part of an exercise in facilitating broad public discussion of the Commission's Review of Regulatory Gaps and the New Media issues paper. It follows on from the post Who are the media?

---

Who guards the guardians?

To qualify for the legal privileges and exemptions outlined in chapter 3 of our Issues Paper we have proposed that a publisher would need to be "accountable to a code of ethics and a complaints process.” 

Which brings us to the second leg of our terms of reference: what type of complaints process?

In New Zealand, as in many other Commonwealth countries, the print media and broadcasters have traditionally been subject to different types of regulatory oversight. 

Broadcasters, an area initially dominated by the state and utilising a scarce public resource, have been held accountable to statutorily defined and enforced standards covering matters such as fairness, accuracy, good taste and decency.

The Press, which was privately owned, remained independent of any legally prescribed standards and accountabilities, instead developing its own ethical principles backed by an industry complaints appeals process - the Press Council.

Both systems are format-based and as traditional broadcasters and print companies converge on an ever expanding array of digital platforms, this approach to regulation becomes increasingly problematic for consumers.  In chapter one of our issues paper we explain how the lack of regulatory parity between broadcasters and print companies, and between new internet-based media and traditional media, is leading to gaps and anomalies. (view para 18 of the issues paper summary document)

Our preliminary conclusion then is that neither of the existing regulators may be fit for purpose in a digital age. Instead we put forward an alternative model based on the following principles:

  • A free press is critical to a democracy. The Bill of Rights guarantee of freedom of expression must lie at the basis of any news media regulation. It requires that sanctions be proportionate, that accountability rather than censorship should be the guiding principle, and that any regulation should be free of state control.
  • Media regulation should be truly independent, both from government, and also from the industry itself.
  • Any regulatory system should foster rather than stifle diversity and growth in the generation of news and current affairs in New Zealand.
  • The system of regulation should be flexible and platform neutral, although standards may sometimes need to take account of different modes of delivery or types of publisher.
  • Any system of media regulation should not inhibit the freedom of speech of individuals who are not part of the news media. There should remain a right for individuals to speak out, however unorthodox or even wrong their views may be.

The new regulator we are proposing would have the following features:

  • It would be independent of both government and the news industry.
  • Appointments to the regulator would be by an independent panel. The regulator would comprise industry and non-industry representatives, the latter being the majority.
  • The regulator would be responsible for working with the various sectors of the industry and consulting with the wider public to devise the set of principles by which it adjudicates. As is already the case under the current broadcasting regime, we envisage there being a number of different codes based on these principles but appropriate to different news producers and publishing environments – for example bloggers may devise their own codes.

The regulator would be recognised by statute and funded by contributions from members and subsidised by the state.

Many traditional and new web-based publishers already have robust processes for responding to readers’ concerns. We are not proposing to disturb those arrangements. For the most part the new regulator would be adjudicating complaints which had not been satisfactorily resolved between the complainant and the publisher.

An effective regulator must not only be independent it must also be accessible to the public – which means it must be able to advertise its existence and promote its role.

Adequate funding is essential if it is to do this effectively and we see no reason why a mix of public and private funding should not be used to support the new body. At present the Press Council is entirely industry funded and yet manages to remain independent in its adjudications – the same should be possible for an independent regulator with respect to any state funding, provided no strings are attached.

Should membership be entirely voluntary or should some news media be compelled to join?  

We think there is a strong Bill of Rights rationale for making membership of this new independent regulator entirely voluntary. There would be benefits in belonging. Any publisher who wanted to access the legal privileges of the news media, such as exemptions from the Privacy Act, would have to belong.

We think many news media organisations would also see value for their brand in belonging to such a body. It also seems likely that other private and public institutions might use membership of the body as a way of allocating non-statutory media privileges such as rights of attendance at press conferences etc.

But are these incentives strong enough to attract the bulk of news media?

Some might argue that having access to the courts for instance is far less important to media companies today than it was a decade ago.

If the incentives are not strong enough to attract voluntary compliance is there a case for compelling some news media companies to belong?

If so what criteria would be appropriate for determining who must belong?

  • Commercial status of the publisher?
  • Audience size?

 We are interested in your views on these issues.

  • If you think it is in the public interest for the news media to continue to be subject to some form of external accountability, what is the most appropriate form of regulation? (view chapter 6).
  • Is there still a case for treating broadcasters differently from other publishers, continuing to make all broadcasters subject to Government imposed regulation, as is the case at present?
  • If you think that media convergence means there is no longer a strong case for treating newspaper publishers and broadcasters differently, then what is the most appropriate form of regulation for the news media?

– state regulation, with standards and sanctions set out in legislation?

– some form of independent regulation such as we propose where neither the government nor the news industry controls the regulator?

  • If you support the independent model we propose, do you think the incentives for membership are strong enough for the system to work on an entirely voluntary basis?
  • If not, do you think there is a case for making membership compulsory for some publishers? How would you define these?

---

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:

This discussion is being advertised across several new media websites - guests to Public Address are very welcome but please refer to the ruleshere.

This discussion is part of the Law commission’s consultation on their issues paper “The News Media meets ‘New Media’ : rights, responsibilities and regulation in the digital age. I.E. your comments below may be taken into account when the Law Commission writes its final report on Media Regulation issues. The discussion will be moderated, however this moderation will be in accordance with the normal rules of moderation in this forum.

 Several other things follow from this:

 1. The Law Commission may participate in the discussion.  Any comments it makes in this forum should be regarded as provisional as the Commission will not finalise its policies and recommendations to government until it tables its final report which is expected at the end of 2012.

 2.  Parts or all of this discussion may be archived as part of the official record of this Issues Paper Consultation (Practically this means that  if you change your mind on something then you are encouraged to say so and explain why - otherwise your initial view may be interpreted as a kind of submission).;

3.  This discussion may be subject to the Official Information Act - and certainly any remarks made by the Law Commission will be; The Law Commission encourages all participants to also make formal submissions to the Law Commission here.  If you form an opinion on these issues as a result of reading the discussion in this thread then please share that with the Commission directly if you wish.

 - The Law Commission and Russell Brown (Host and publisher of Public Address)