Nicole Mathewson in The Press reports:

Christchurch Hospital staff have been advised not to walk through the Occupy Christchurch camp after dark amid fears of increasing crime and drug use at the protest site.

The Occupy Christchurch group began as part of a global movement against corporate greed on October 15, with about 30 tents set up in South Hagley Park since.

However, some say the camp has become a venue for drug use and has caused safety problems for staff from the nearby hospital.

Christchurch District Health Board security and emergency planning manager Adam Creed said cars had been broken into and hospital staff had complained about being approached for money while they were walking home at night.

“This is all happening opposite the city’s main hospital, and we can see everything from our buildings. We’ve seen some things going on, such as people paying for sexual favours.”

Security guards had always been available to escort staff to their cars, and three extra guards had been hired to make sure people did not have to wait, he said. …

A hospital staff member, who did not want to be identified, said the hospital had told staff not to walk through the park at night because of increased crime, including sexual assaults.

Many of her colleagues thought it was disgraceful they now needed escorts to walk through the park.

“We have to cower and worry that our car will be still intact when we finish work, or worse that we will not make it safely to our car,” she said.

The mother of a 17-year-old protester said her son had been turned on to drugs by others at the Occupy site about two months ago.

“He was an absolutely awesome child; no problems, a church boy.”

He began camping there and would be hidden by others if she tried to get him to go home, she said.

How disgraceful. Time for Mayor Bob to follow Auckland and Wellington and evict the malignancy.

Stuff reports:

A fully loaded 14,000-tonne cargo ship remains in limbo at Wellington’s wharf as industrial action at the Port of Auckland spreads across the country.

Unionised cargo workers at the capital’s port declined to handle the Maersk Aberdeen when it came into port on Friday because it had been worked on by non-unionised workers in Auckland.

The ship has been “blacked” by Wellington wharfies, with Maritime Union members picketing the port during the weekend.

Yesterday, CentrePort announced it would seek a court injunction to force the workers to handle the ship. The hearing will take place today.

It is important that people realise that the Maritime Union wants to control all Ports in New Zealand. Their resorting to clearly illegal strikes reflects this. If employees choose not to join a union, they should be able to do so without intimidation. However the Maritime Union tries to use its power to blacklist any port which has non union labour. They do not believe employees should have a choice. They want de facto compulsory membership.

Remember all the demonisation of the Speaker over the Mathers funding situation. The Herald reports:

Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith has been criticised for his decision not to grant funding for Ms Mathers, but he has said he does not have the authority to approve it.

The matter will be discussed by the Parliamentary Service Commission – made up of senior MPs from all parties – tomorrow night.

A spokeswoman for Dr Smith – who has been paying for the service from his parliamentary budget while the matter is being debated – said he had “some options to offer”.

So Lockwood has been using his own private budget to cover it. Hardly the person the Greens portrayed.

Greens co-leader Metiria Turei said her party had received advice from a law firm on whether the money should come out of the support budget all MPs receive, or from that which supports the overall operation of Parliament.

I wonder how many hours of recording could have been paid for, by now hiring lawyers?

This is a guest post 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 three posts at Public Address being  Who are the media? and Who guards the guardians? and Censorship is not the only enemy of free speech. The Law Commission warmly invites you to engage in discussion of this post.

This is a rare opportunity to influence the direction of media and new media policy in New Zealand. I encourage people to make constructive comments, that help answer the questions posed.

Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the posts.”

I would also encourage people to consider making formal submissions, which can be done up until the closing date on Monday 12th of March.

DPF

4.What standards should apply?

One of the first challenges facing any new converged media regulator would be to consult the public about what standards should apply to the news media and the extent to which standards should differ in different contexts.

Currently, the two existing news media regulators, the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Press Council adopt quite different approaches to how they define and apply journalistic ethics and standards.

Because it is a statutory body the BSA must apply standards laid down in primary legislation and must work with industry to translate these into specific codes of practices which are used to assess complaints. There are currently four different codes:

• Free-to-air television
• Pay television
• Radio
• Election Programmes

The BSA has developed a significant body of media jurisprudence, particularly in the area of of privacy.

The Press Council is much less prescriptive in its approach, relying on a set of general journalistic principles which are intended to provide guidance to the public and publishers with respect to ethical journalism.

To date we are not aware of any New Zealand research investigating public expectations of media standards and how these may be changing as a result of the greatly expanded menu of options available to consumers of news and current affairs.

Some of the questions a new regulator might want answered are whether the public has a different expectation of standards of accuracy and fairness from news websites which are constantly updating breaking news, compared with those same sites’ print products? Similarly, does the public expect the same standards from news videos published on newspaper websites as they do from footage broadcast on prime time television? What about news and current affairs programmes accessed on demand?

And what care are news sites expected to take when publishing user-generated content including comments on news stories?

What about bloggers who might choose to come under the independent news media complaints body – should they be subject to a different code more appropriate for the inevitably partisan nature of opinion makers?

Interestingly recent research undertaken by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) exploring Australians’ expectations of media standards in a converged environment found the content itself (and the provider) were more determinative of consumer expectations than the platform on which that content was delivered:

One of the key findings from the focus groups involved in the research was “the expectation that community standards should apply differently to content type rather than delivery channel.

Participants consistently distinguished between user-generated and professionally produced content. This distinction was driven by the perception of each content type having a different ‘community’ Content that was professionally produced (such as films, television programs or series) was expected to be consumed on a mass scale by the broader community and, as such it was expected to reflect broad community standards.

In our Issues Paper we raise a number of questions to test New Zealanders’ perceptions and expectations of media standards in the converged environment. We also suggest a new regulator would need to consult widely with the public on these questions. Among the questions we pose in our Issues Paper with respect to standards are:

Traditionally, the standards to which the news media have been held accountable have dealt with the following matters: (chapter 4 at 4.30)

• Accuracy;
• Fairness and balance – ensuring for example that news is not deliberately distorted through the omission of important facts or view-points;
• Respect for individuals’ rights to privacy;
• A commitment to public interest rather than self-interested publishing;
• Transparency; ensuring conflicts of interest are declared;
• Good taste and decency; ensuring the general public is not offended by the gratuitous publication of offensive content.

Do you think these standards are still important?

Do the internet and the facility for others to comment and participate in the news process change any of these standards?  (chapter 6 at 6.41)

Should all news media be accountable to the same standards irrespective of the medium in which they publish?  Or is there a distinction to be made between content which is broadcast to mass audiences simultaneously and content which is accessed by individuals on demand? (chapter 6 at 6.92)

The ACMA research suggests the on-demand distinction is less important than the nature of the market for which the content was intended. With respect to news and current affairs, this market is by its very nature almost invariably broad-based, which might suggest community expectations of standards for news and current affairs may be uniform irrespective of delivery channel.

What are your views?

“IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION:

This discussion is being advertised across several new media websites – guests to Kiwiblog are very welcome but please refer to the rules under Posting Policy and Demerits.

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 David Farrar (Host and publisher of Kiwiblog)

This photo is from Reuters. Captions as always should be funny, not nasty.

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

COME ON IN…IF YOU’RE RICH: Are we only interested in wealthy immigrants? A leaked Cabinet paper shows new immigration laws could make it harder for poor, non-english speakers to move to NZ. Do we need a larger population? Do we have too many unskilled workers in the country? Is a two-tier process fair or discriminatory? Should parents with dependent children be left out? And should you have to pre-pay for language lessons? Does this mean we only want the rich & famous? Can we afford for immigrants to come into NZ on the benefit?

A NIGHT AT THE POKIES: Do we have a gambling problem? SkyCity is planning a new $350m convention centre but in turn wants a revamp of our gambling laws. SkyCity wants a higher cap on gaming tables and machines and a licence extension. Key says policy is not for sale and says the number of Pokie machines are in decline. Do bars need pokie machines? Should gambling be restricted to casinos? Should we be asking casinos to help stop problem gamblers?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 7th of March. Our Panel: Green Party MP Denise Roche, Labour MP Rino Tirikatene, and National MP Dr. Cam Calder.

Wednesday at 9.05pm and Saturday at 10.05pm on TVNZ 7

I’ve just published Curia’s monthly public polls newsletter. You can subscribe to it at this address. The summary is:

February saw three political polls published – two Roy Morgan polls and a 3 News Reid Research poll.

The average of the public polls has National 16% ahead of Labour. For the first time, the public polls average does not show a clear centre-right Government, but instead the Maori Party holding the balance of power

Australia has the Government only 4% to 6% behind the Opposition on a two party preferred basis. However in the upcoming Queensland state election Labor are 16% behind. Gillard has only 26% approval and 64% disapproval of the job she is doing as PM.

In the United States Barack Obama has had a great three months. His approval ratings have improved by a net 9%, and for economic management have gone up 20%. The country direction sentiment has improved by a net 32%. His re-election chances are now rated at 605, up from 49%. The Republican nomination is Mitt Romney’s to lose.  He only has 166 out of 1,144 delegates and still the preferred choice of only 37% of Republicans. However Intrade has him at 85% likely to gain the nomination.

The polls show Obama ahead of Romney by 5% in a head to head contest. However the Republicans remained favoured to keep control in the House (63%) and gain a majority in the Senate (61%)

In the UK Labour lead by just 2%.

In Canada the Conservatives have dropped 5% to 34%.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on the most important issues, top news stories, personal finances, the Occupy movement, low voter turnout reasons, breastfeeding, Maori views and the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

The graph above shows the combined effects of NZ First getting over the 5% threshold, and also National dropping from low 50s to high 40s.

Andrew Stone in the NZ Herald reports:

A new book examines the positive impact of Jewish people in New Zealand

Three New Zealand prime ministers have been Jews.

So have two chief justices, six Auckland mayors, the country’s first female lawyer, Ethel Benjamin, and first woman doctor, Emily Siedeberg, who enrolled at Otago University in 1891 with the consent of dean John Scott who told her to give “no encouragement for frivolity”.

The record of achievement from a small community rolls on: in education, the law, arts, business, medicine, civic affairs, philanthropy, architecture and film.

“Punching well above their weight” was the late writer Michael King’s observation about the Jewish community in New Zealand. Art historian Len Bell, co-editor of a handsome, richly illustrated new history of Jews in New Zealand, firmly agrees. The impact, says Bell, of the smart, often secular mid-century professional migrants, displaced by the rise of Nazi Germany, has been vast.

He says many were motivated to succeed, encouraged by family, education and tradition, driven to high levels of accomplishment.

It is not just in New Zealand that members of the Jewish community “punch above their weight”. In New Zealand, only 0.17% of the population are Jewish. This is well below the number of Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Brethren and Sikhs. Of course some (such as John Key) are included in the definition “Jewish community” even though he is not of the Jewish religion.

I’m not Jewish myself, but my father’s family are of Jewish descent (but not religion), fleeing Hitler in 1938. I didn’t know this until I was 14, and by coincidence just a couple of weeks ago ran into an old schoolmate I had not seen for 25 years who was indirectly responsible for me finding out my family background. At 14 we were discussing girls of course, and my friend, Nathan, told me that he can only date Jewish girls, as he has to marry within the religion (which I found out he did indeed do). I had not realised he was Jewish, and remarked to my parents when I got home that Nathan was Jewish, and that I had no idea as he seemed so “normal” (remember I was 14). That’s when I learnt my father’s family was Jewish. The trauma of the anti-semitism that culimated in the Holocaust was so great, that it was something that had never been discussed with my late grand-parents. It was only after they passed away, did I learn more of their life in Vienna, and what happened in the 1930s there.

In 1934 the Jewish population of Vienna was around 9%, yet the comprised 52% of the doctors, 86% of the lawyers, 25% of the leather merchants, 75% of the wine dealers, 82% of credit bureaus etc. I suspect this is was partly fueled the anti-semitism, but of course anti-semitism had existed for hundreds of years prior also.

In the US, this “over-achievement” is also profound. Wikipedia cites:

Forty-five percent of the top 40 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are Jewish. Twenty percent of professors at leading universities are Jewish. Forty percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington are Jewish. Thirty percent of American Nobel prize winners in science and 37 percent of all American Nobel winners are Jewish. An estimated thirty percent of Ivy League students are Jewish.

Jews make up just 1.7% of the US population. 14 Senators are Jewish, 30 House Reps the same and seven Supreme Court Justices have been Jewish (out of 112 total).

A good book for those interested in Jewish history is The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels.

Lindsay Mitchell writes in the NZ Herald:

Metiria Turei describes this as “forcing” mothers into work but that claim doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. Nobody is forced to have a baby on a benefit – a benefit provided, incidentally, because she is already unable to independently support her children. Never before have women been better able to control their fertility. If she chooses to get pregnant and have the baby she will be doing so fully aware that if a part-time job is available when that baby turns one, she will be expected to accept it (along with the childcare assistance needed to do so.) The choice is ultimately hers.

This is a key point. The vast majority of those who have further children on welfare, choose to do so.  Despite being unable to even support their current children, they choose to have further children.

Mitchell points out the Key Govt response is different to the US response:

Some American states attempted to deal with the same problem by introducing ‘family caps’ which limited cash assistance to a fixed number of children and no more. The results were mixed and such a move here would be met with objections about depriving additional children, especially from the Child Poverty Action Group.

So the government went with the one year exemption option.

If the parent moves into work, due to work testing, that will actually increase the family income.

Freedom of choice is what the reforms are essentially about re-balancing. True freedom of choice can’t encroach on someone else’s. Most voters are behind the reforms because they feel unfairly treated when one group is allowed to make a choice that they are denied. Why is it fair for single parents to be supported to stay at home indefinitely when most partnered parents go back to work quite quickly? It becomes especially gruelling for working mothers to then hear that putting their young children into daycare is a form of “child abuse”, an argument advanced by the opposition to reject the reforms.

Absolutely. Also most parents choose to limit their families to a size that they can afford. This was not a choice available 100 years ago, but is a choice today.

Children who spend many years on the DPB generally have much poorer outcomes. This is well-documented. To knowingly exacerbate this situation by adding more children to a workless household can’t be defended at any level. In the interests of children the government is entirely justified in trying to break this habit.

Well said Lindsay.

NZ Herald reports:

More than 25,000 animals including fish have died during research and teaching at the University of Otago since 2009, and the figures are expected to increase significantly when statistics are collated for 2011.

Oh Good God, why is this a story. They have a medical school.  I recall dissecting fish in first year biology. How do you teach biology otherwise?

Many on the right sometimes think that Labour wants to get a majority of the population dependent on the state, so that they will have a majority who will always vote for greater state spending and dependency.

This story gives fuel to that suspicion:

Immigration categories are to be changed in an effort to “reduce the number of unskilled migrants who find it difficult to get jobs and are more likely to get benefit payments”.

Who could be against that?

Applications from parents seeking residency to be with children already in New Zealand will be placed in the slow processing lane if their children-sponsors are not “high-income” people.

Parents will no longer be able to bring in dependent children and applicants who are poor in English will be required to pre-pay for language lessons.

The changes are outlined in a Cabinet paper obtained by the Labour Party, which says the plan creates a divide between the rich and famous and ordinary migrants wanting to move to New Zealand.

Labour is.

Let’s be very clear about this. Migrating to NZ is a privilege. We absolutely should be favouring migrants who have wealth, skills, education etc. We allow a quota of refugees in, where income or wealth is not a factor. But to suggest wealth should not be a factor for migration is economically stupid.

Tom Pullar-Strecker reports:

It was nothing more than any holidaymaker might do.

Wellingtonian Magnus O’Neill pulled out his iPhone while holidaying in the Cook Islands, checked Facebook and used Wikipedia to research his hotel and what tropical fish he might see.

The online checks would have cost him about $4 in New Zealand. Instead he now faces a bill from Telecom for $2000.

His roaming consumed a modest 70 megabytes of mobile data. But what Mr O’Neill didn’t realise was that he was being charged $30 a megabyte, a price he believes was “extortionate and unfair”.

It is. This is an all too common story.

In Europe, regulators were forcing the wholesale price of data roaming down to 5c a megabyte, he said.

Which is plenty, considering the cost of international bandwidth wholesales at around 5c a gigabyte. The problem is that when you go overseas with your mobile, you have little choice but to pay or not use. However something I now do is acquire a local sim card. It will give you a few GB of data for well under $100.

Telecom spokeswoman Stephanie Fergusson said Telecom had offered to write off $977.87 of Mr O’Neill’s bill, which he had run up before he received a delayed “courtesy” text from Telecom advising him that New Zealand data rates would not apply during his visit to the Cook Islands.

They should occur near instantly when you land.

This month Telecom will introduce a new service that will let customers set their own dollar limits for data roaming that will stop them from racking up bigger bills unless overridden. It will also text customers when they consume more than 2Mb, 60Mb and 100Mb when roaming overseas.

This is a step in the right direction. But the limits are ridicolous. No person in their right mind wants to use 60 or 100 MBs. You need steps in between 2 and 60. I would suggest available limits should be 1 MB, 2 MB, 5 MB, 10 MB, 20 MB, and 35 MB (which is $1,000 in some countries), 60 MB, 100 MB.

I am assuming that Telecom means megabytes (MB) not megabits (Mb). The Dom Post uses Mb in that last paragraph, which normally indicates megabits.

Steven Price blogs:

So the head of TVOne and Two, Jeff Latch, asks for a powwow with Fair Go staff. Labour broadcasting spokesperson Clare Curran asks whether, at that meeting, he asked them to go easy on TVNZ’s advertisers.

Latch said he just stressed the need for balance. Price comments:

It does make sense. So much sense, in fact, that you have to wonder why Jeff Latch had to organise a meeting with Fair Go to tell them that. Did he also mention that they should try to be accurate? Not defame people? Latch should know that Fair Go are probably the TVNZ reporters best versed in broadcasting standards and media law, since they deal with them every week.

Then the key part:

Asked if he was instructing Fair Go not to produce programmes that upset advertisers, he said “it wasn’t an instruction, per se.”

Not per se? This sounds weasily to me. Was it a hint, Mr Latch?

Any suggestion that advertisers on TVNZ should be treated differently to non-advertisers by Fair Go, is abhorent.

Price concludes:

Because actually, Fair Go has a pretty good track record in its broadcasting standards complaints. It has not been listed in the BSA’s “Most complained about” shows for at least the past three years, despite the fact that it often makes serious accusations against people with the resources to sue. Likewise, there haven’t been any reported defamation cases against them in the last few years, as far as I can tell. Was there a big secret settlement recently?

If not, Mr Latch – how should I put this? – you should stay the fuck away from the Fair Go staff. It’s their job to tackle TVNZ’s advertisers when that is merited, and it’s your job to hire good journos then leave them to get on with their job.

A fair conclusion.

Edward Rooney in HoS reports:

David Bain says he was able to cope with the conviction for killing his entire family because his parents had raised him to be courageous and strong.

He makes the comment in his interview with TV3’s 60 Minutesshow, which airs tonight. Asked how he coped with the loss of his family, Bain says, “Thinking back over a lot of the circumstances I don’t know how I got through them. I can only thank my upbringing, my family, my Mum and Dad [who] helped us with our education, with our upbringing, with university studies and helped us become the people we are. And somewhere in there I guess was the learned strength and courage that they both had.”

Hmmn so David now speaking so well of his father. Recall the trial, as reported by NZ Herald:

David Bain said he hated his father, a court has heard.

Valerie Boyd, David’s aunty, told the High Court today that she had a conversation with David in the days following the death of five members of his family on June 20, 1994.

Bain, 37, is on trial for the murder of his parents and three siblings in their Dunedin home on June 20, 1994. His defence team say his father Robin, 58, shot dead the rest of the family before turning the .22 rifle on himself.

Mrs Boyd said when she spoke with David, he told her that he hated his father.

David considered Robin sneaky, because he listened in to conversations that had nothing to do with him, Mrs Boyd said.

Robin had separated from his wife Margaret, and David said they did not want him in the family home, but he would not leave.

What a coincidence having the first ever interview, just as the compensation claim is being considered.

UPDATE: I have now closed this thread for further comments. After over 1,250 comments any valid points people wish to make will have been made.

Whale Oil blogs:

I just had a phone call from the sister of the Turangi Child Rapist, Raurangi Marino. …

Then she started into a lecture about how her wee brother was hard done by. How the police fitted him up and he was only wasted and fell onto the little girl. How it was all a fit up by the girls mother.

It sickened me. What a bunch of losers. Explaining away hours of surgery to repair the damage that this shit-bag did to a 5 year old on “just being wasted”.

This family is disfunctional. They are justifying crimes and excusing abhorrent behaviour.

The last thing she said is that I breached her poor wee brother’s privacy by posting photos he put on Facebook….on his open and public page. I told her to get fucked, that I won;t ever take down the photos and they could whinge all they liked to the Privacy Commissioner.

She told me she would before she hung up. I can’t hardly wait.

This confirms all my worst fears. This suggests all the remorse is a sham, and that the offender probably has no one in his life telling him how what he did is so horribly horribly wrong.

A friend just reminded me of a section of new Green MP Holly Walker’s maiden speech. I’ve blogged in the past that I think Holly will be a very good MP and advocate for her beliefs. But that doesn’t mean I won’t have fun highlighting when she competes with Cath Delahunty to be the most fervent Ngati Pakeha in Parliament.

In Holly’s speech she said:

Mr Speaker, at this point it is appropriate to acknowledge the amazing kākahu that rests on my shoulders tonight. It was woven by long-standing Green Party member and leader Danna Glendinning over 22 months, under the guidance of kuia at Te Rau Awaawa in Hamilton, and gifted to the party at a powhiri in January. This incredible taonga is woven from the feathers of Pākehā birds

How is a bird a Pākehā bird? What makes a bird a Pākehā? What birds are Maori? Are some birds asian?

Does she mean a Pākehā bird is a non-endemic to New Zealand bird? Or does she mean a Pākehā bird is a non-native bird?

I’ve never heard a bird referred to as a Pākehā before. It is somewhat ironic as some say that the term is derived from “Pa-Kea”, a long nosed bird that was often found in the pa.

 including caged battery hens, who have found a freedom in death in this kākahu that they never had in life. 

A freedom in death? Remind me never to give Holly an enduring power of attorney over me 🙂 My idea of freedom doesn’t include being made into a cloak!

The Dom Post editorial:

Does Wellington City Council think the capital’s residents are stupid?

Once again, the council is proposing increases to parking fees, and once again it is trying to pull the wool over motorists’ eyes by claiming the higher charges are aimed at increasing turnover at parking spaces, not raising revenue.

The claim is simply preposterous. There are already sufficient controls to govern turnover at parking spaces in the city, and in suburban areas as well, in the form of time restrictions. In some cases, limits for free parking can be as little as 10 minutes, while in the city centre, metered parking spaces are restricted to two hours. 

The Council seems to have an infestation of tax (rate/levy/fee) and spend politicians. I think we need a ticket for the next election of candidates who pledge not to increase spending in real terms. Wellington families and businesses can’t afford to fund a Council whose spending keeps increasing faster than not just inflation, but overall economic growth also.

A very interesting article from Andrea Vance at Stuff:

While Mr Key will front the reforms, they are being driven by Finance Minister Bill English – who is deeply committed to remodelling the sector. And no wonder – he pays the bills and it accounts for one third of New Zealand’s economy.

Essentially, in a drive that would send Sir Humphrey Appleby into apoplexies, the public service is about to become more flexible.

It’s a remarkably simple idea but one that strikes at the very heart of the modern-day civil service. At present individual departments and agencies work on their “outputs” – what they deliver. The social development ministry pays out benefits, Corrections builds more prisons. Annual incentives are set, targets are ticked off and budgets are (usually) met. They work in – excuse the jargon – silos.

By and large “outcomes” – the big picture stuff – are not catered for. …

Politically, “outcomes” are a lot more risky than easily measured “outputs”; it takes just one rogue NGO, or one mis-timed question from the Opposition about a taxpayer funded hip-hop scheme or a misappropriation of funds.

Moving the state sector from being focused on outcomes outputs to outputs outcomes is a heroic endeavour, but worthwhile. As Andrea says, outputs are easily measured and easy to achieve. If one moves towards outcomes, then one has to accept there will be some failures. You can near guarantee outputs, but outcomes are far more complex.

In its purest form, we might see super-ministries, although National is shying away from this for the time being. Instead of merging Corrections, police and justice into one monster law and order department, they have established an umbrella board to oversee co-operation.

I tend to favour super-ministries, but sharing of back office functions and a joint board to over-see co-operation is a step in the right direction.

Which means we are also unlikely to see the logical conclusion of this shift: a much smaller executive.

A half-serious proposal for a seven minister Cabinet was recently floated – and hastily dismissed. National has instead opted for “cluster” ministers – Steven Joyce overseeing economic development, David Carter taking on primary industries.

The model I favour is a 12 member Cabinet with 12 full Ministers (for 12 super-ministries) and 12 Associate Ministers outside Cabinet who will be delegated responsibilities for particular agencies within a super-ministry.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Switching to an alternative three-digit non-emergency number could cut down on time-wasting hoax or abandoned calls, a review suggests.

About half of all 111 calls are “false” because of “pocket dialling” on mobile phones, children playing or pranks.

A review commissioned by the Government after two high-profile failures in the 111 system, in 2009 and 2010, floats the idea of changing the number to 112, which is less vulnerable to misdialling. However, this would be costly.

It also suggests allocating additional numbers for non-emergency calls; in some countries different numbers are used for police, fire and medical emergencies.

This has been talked about for years, is common sense and should be implemented. We’ve had over a decade of reviews.

Almost no one knows the number of their local police station, so 111 gets a fair number of non urgent calls. If there is a nationwide non urgent number for the Police such as 777, then that would lessen the load on the 111 system.