Graeme, good work on your submission. If the Teachers Council declines our request to amend their rules (www.tiny.cc/teacherscouncil) then we'll be lining up alongside you to give evidence to the Regulations Review select committee.

The blanket suppression rule, as it stands, is more draconian than any other statutory professional body and most courts, and is quite at odds with the principles of open justice espoused by the Law Commission (2009) and successive government.

In response to Rich of Observationz, we are entirely supportive of the protection of the identity of minors, in this case children alleged to have been victims of teacher misconduct. We say so in our letter, above.

But the Health Practitioners disciplinary tribunal and the courts have proved it is perfectly practical to impose case-by-case suppression orders to protect the identity of individual children. In addition, automatic statutory suppression exists for the victims (adult or child) or sexual offending, and we'd support the extension of this suppression to the Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal.

The naming of teachers found guilty of serious misconduct does not mean the identification of child victims, in most cases. If it did - for instance, in the case of sexual offending in a one-classroom school - then we would expect the Disciplinary Tribunal would impose a suppression order.

I point you also to our editorial at the weekend: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860203

Yours,

Jonathan Milne
Deputy editor
Herald on Sunday

I enjoyed your review and the show tonight, Russell, particularly Toby Manhire's cool and detached assessment of The Guardian's relationship with Julian Assange.

One note: You and Danyl discussed why the publication of the NZ cables seemed to have "dried up". I'm happy to point out that the Herald on Sunday published all the classified Embassy Wellington cables online on the night of December 18/19, along with a number of news stories. These stories and cables were pored over by anyone interested, including pretty much every New Zealand journalist with decent experience in covering diplomatic issues.

It is true that the Star-Times did not publish any further articles by Nicky Hager after the Herald on Sunday obtained and published the classified cables in their entirety. But it was only Nicky's analysis that was denied to the New Zealand public - the cables themselves were available, and so too analysis by other journalists and commentators.

Jonathan Milne
Herald on Sunday