A guest post from Michael Cash:

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once stated that, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart – if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” However, American composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein claimed that “A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future.”

Obviously, the definition of “liberal” can change depending on the country and the time period being discussed. It is often thought that classical liberalism is European and modern liberalism is American; however, graduates of political science schools will tell you that both areas of the world contributed to the development of both forms of government. Both classical and modern liberalism advocate personal freedoms and limited governmental power. The essential differences lie in the beliefs concerning the role of government in economic and social issues.

Foundations of Classical Liberalism

Classic liberalism is a political ideology that arose in the early nineteenth century in Europe and America. Its principles began to develop in the eighteenth century as a reaction to the new type of society that was being formed due to the industrial revolution. Whereas classical conservative principles included maintaining the traditional governmental institutions of the time and only seeking gradual change in society, classical liberalism advocated progress, natural law, economic freedom, limited government and liberty for each individual.

John Locke, one of the most famous philosophers of the enlightenment era, provided the foundation for many of the principles of classical liberalism. He suggested that a human, rather than living in the fear inherent in an anarchistic environment, gives up some sovereignty and enters into a “social contract” with a government in exchange for property protection. While Locke never specifically defined what he meant by “property,” this idea led to the core belief that legitimate authority must only come from the consent of the governed.

Another important person in the development of classical liberalism was Adam Smith. Through his book, The Wealth of Nations, he described how a free market economy that relies on individual competition and capitalist principles is the most productive and beneficial for a society. These ideas helped form the liberal principles regarding economics.

Some of the ideals of classical liberalism can be clearly seen in two famous American documents:

1. The Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

2. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

These statements derive from the classic liberal principles of individual freedoms and restricted government.

Development of Modern Liberalism

While the ideas of classical liberalism were met with some dissent in Europe, it became the prevailing political ideology throughout much of the western world in the nineteenth century. Many countries that adopted this ideology were economically prosperous at this time, and while there were many causes for the prosperity, it was partly due to the free market economy supported by classical liberal ideals. However, economic principles in both Europe and the U.S. started to come into question beginning with the Panic of 1873, which led to a serious economic depression in Britain. A series of further economic panics including the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, in addition to escalating civil rights and labor movements, caused many politicians to rethink the role of government, leading to modern liberalism.

Modern liberalism is based on classical ideals, but it accepts the notion that government should be less limited in order to provide social justice. This means that a modern liberal government can address and influence economic issues as well as social issues such as health care, unemployment, education and civil rights. Proponents of modern liberalism suggest that there are inadequacies involved with the laissez-faire capitalism of a strictly classical liberal government. These inherent problems prevent poor people from having as much liberty as the more fortunate. A modern liberalism government strives to assist every individual in the acquisition of his or her maximum amount of freedom and to “level the playing field.” This, in turn, leads to more government involvement and control in the lives of citizens. Modern liberalism has been a predominant political ideology since World War II.

Social and Economic Policies

While the principles of classical liberalism would prevent a government from getting involved in economic or social issues, many famous policies and initiatives have been developed by modern liberal governments. In the U.S. for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt is famous for initiating the large-scale New Deal, which was an initiative that created jobs for the unemployed and regulated economic policies in order to recover from the Great Depression. Other examples of modern liberal actions include the development of welfare, social security, child labor restrictions, minimum wage laws, worker safety regulations, affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act. More recent examples include the 2008 U.K. bank rescue package and the 2010 South Canterbury Finance bailout in New Zealand.

The sweeping policies enacted by modern liberalism governments have certainly not gone unquestioned. Many countries contain political parties that attempt to shift the government back towards classical liberalism principles. With the election of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the U.S. government aimed to lessen its regulation of economic matters dramatically. The resulting policies, known as “Reaganomics,” were echoed in similar actions taken by other world leaders such as the “Rogernomics” enacted by New Zealand Finance Minister Roger Douglas in 1984. These policies did not mark a complete change back to classical liberalism by any means, but they were influenced by those ideals.

Current Political Parties

There are numerous political parties throughout the world that advocate different forms of classical liberalism or modern liberalism. For example, the Libertarian Party in the U.S. supports strong civil liberties, unregulated markets and a foreign policy of non-interventionism. The style of limited government that the party promotes is one of the closest options to classical liberalism that a voter in the U.S. has. The two predominant parties, Democrats and Republicans, can both arguably be called modern liberal parties.

Some political parties undergo many changes throughout their existence. The New Zealand Liberal Party for example started as a modern liberal party that advocated women’s suffrage and aid for small farmers, among other issues. After roughly 20 years of dominance around the turn of the twentieth century, the party dissolved. However, a faction of the Liberal Party went on to create the United Party, which eventually became the New Zealand National Party. This party is now considered to be generally conservative.

I self-identify as a classical liberal, and it is a pity it does get confused with US modern liberalism. As Michael points out they do have some aspects in common – but differ greatly on economic issues.

Brian Rudman mocks Len Brown’s list of achievements, and tells him to focus on buses:

Mayor Len Brown’s curse is self-inflicted – a rash promise before his coronation last November to within 100 days unveil 100 projects he would complete.

“We will see things really fly,” he promised.

With less than 20 days to go, Mayor Len’s immediate problem is not so much getting things airborne, it’s struggling to come up with bright ideas to launch.

This week, he and his retinue managed to scrape together a list of just 52. And many of those belonged in the “got up,” “brushed my teeth” category.

Claiming credit for setting up various advisory panels required by law is rather cringe-making.

So is “recommending the budget”, “monthly town hall meetings”, “regular engagement with local boards” and “spatial plan initiative”, all nuts-and-bolts functions that were going to happen regardless. …

Of course he’s not the first politician to bathe in the glory of tasks initiated by his predecessors. But few are quite as bare-faced as this.

With 48 to go and desperation setting in, what next? No 53: Sun Rises

I can’t wait for the full list of 100 to be published. Maybe once he has, then Len will focus on the important issues and forget the PR stuff for a while.

My suggestion to Mr Brown is that before ordering new ferries for Takapuna or musing about the wonders of the new electric train services, he should, as his first priority, sort out the workhorses of Auckland public transport, the buses.

As Josh Arbury in his Auckland transport blog reminds us, 49 million of the trips on Auckland public transport this year will be on buses, and if the mayor wants to hit his 2021 target, that’s where the main growth will have to occur.

He also notes how little bus patronage has increased this decade, up from 45 million trips in 2002 to 49 million this year.

Why is that? For me, the biggest turn-off is lack of punctuality.

Waiting for the missing bus is a killer. You can’t even fill in the time reading a book for fear that when the bus does appear it will speed past unless you’re kerbside, waving your arms like a windmill.

I always look at the public transport systems of overseas cities when staying in them, to see how well they work and why. Punctuality is an absolute must. Ideally you don’t even want route timetables – you want a train or bus to be frequent enough that you know you will never have more than say a 10 – 15 minute wait.

As important is integrated and electronic ticketing. No cash Everyone just swipes in and off.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Labour’s proposal offers no real advance on the present policy while increasing welfare spending. The paid leave period would be extended by just a month, from 14 to 18 weeks, and more parents would be eligible for it, mainly, it seems, to match Australia’s new scheme.

This desire for comparability in spending is somewhat odd in itself. Hasn’t the same Labour Party scorned the Government’s goal of achieving pay parity with Australia by 2025?

More than that, however, an extra four weeks would offer little in the way of inducement or message. The money would still cover only a tiny fraction of the financial cost of a child.

More problematic still is Labour’s plan to make Working for Families more generous for parents of children under 2. Already, that scheme is too benevolent in both its sum and reach. Many middle-class families have been able to arrange their financial affairs to qualify for unwarranted payments.

But all Labour can do is promise to spend more and more money, meaning higher income taxes or more borrowing.

Bernard Orsman reports:

It is undemocratic and untenable for unelected members of the Auckland Council’s Maori statutory board to have voting rights on council committees, says Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman Phil Twyford.

I agree with Phil Twyford on this point.

It is worth noting that the Royal Commission actually recommended having an unelected (appointed by Iwi) Councillor sit on the main Auckland Council itself. Labour criticised National for not following the Commission’s recommendations.

Two Maori representatives from the nine-member Maori statutory body will join up to 20 council committees with full voting powers under a Super City bill passed last year in the name of Local Government Minister and Act leader Rodney Hide.

If the council committees are actually making decisions, not just recommendations, this is a quite serious issue. Non-voting representation would be more appropriate.

It is worth remembering that three of the 20 Councillors are of Maori descent – and elected through wards.

Mr Twyford said hand-picked representatives exercising a full vote alongside elected representatives on council committees went against a fundamental principle of democracy and the Government should amend the law to make the positions advisory only.

I agree. But is Twyford representing what Labour said at the time. Here is a press release on 14 May 2009:

“Labour believes the Government should have adopted the Royal Commission’s proposals to include Maori seats on the council, but it hasn’t.

One of those Maori seats as an un-elected one, appointed by Iwi. So in 2009 Labour seemed to argue for un-elected Maori representation, but now they argue againgst it.

Mr Horomia said the relationship between the Auckland Council and mana whenua is important and it is essential they have a voice in local government decision-making.

“Just how that is reflected and how potential mana whenua seats might complement elected Maori seats is an issue which the select committee will hear submissions on and we will pay attention to this.

Again, Labour were not saying they were against appointed Maori representation back then.

“Imagine how people will feel in a really heated debate on some important issue, a committee is evenly split, and these non-elected, hand-picked advisers have the casting vote. People will be furious,” Mr Twyford said.

Again I agree.

Last night, Mr Hide, who is overseas, on his honeymoon, issued a statement saying the decision for Maori to be members of committees was made at the select committee state.

Labour was on that select committee. In their minority report they said:

This bill introduces a Māori Advisory Board. While we have worked hard to ensure this board is more effective, we have not altered our position. Labour believes there should be Māori seats on the new Auckland Council.

Working hard to make it more effective doesn’t sound like arguing they should not have representation on council committees.

He did say he was surprised the board would appoint people to sit on all council committees when the legislation required it to appoint people only to committees that dealt with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.

This is correct. So it is a decision of the Auckland Council itself that gave voting rights to the non-Councillors on all the other Committees. So will Phil Twyford call on Len Brown to restrict these appointments to those few committees dealing with natural and physical resources.

Giles Brown in The Press reports:

A Christchurch doctor had to treat a woman after she was partially paralysed by a lovebite from her amorous partner.

Dr Teddy Wu, who is currently working in the neurology department at Christchurch Hospital, said he believed it was the first time someone had been hospitalised by a “hickey”.

An article on the case has appeared in the New Zealand Medical Journal.

Wu said he saw the woman over a year ago while he was working in Middlemore Hospital in Auckland.

The 44-year-old Maori woman went to the emergency department after experiencing loss of movement in her left arm.

It happened while she was sitting watching television.

The only injury was a lovebite on the right of her neck near an artery.

I just hope this doesn’t mean there will be a public health campaign warning against the dangers off hickeys!

Keith Lynch in The Press reports:

Christchurch has been rattled by its 10th aftershock in 24 hours after a magnitude 4.4 quake struck this morning.

GNS Science said the quake hit at 2.12am and was centred 10km south-west of the city at a depth of 7km. There were no initial reports of damage.

A flurry of quakes hit Christchurch yesterday, including a magnitude 5.1 shake at 6.03am and a magnitude 3.9 aftershock at 11.10am.

GNS Science seismologist John Ristau warned people to expect aftershocks of up to magnitude 5.0 every month to six weeks.

He said aftershocks could go on for “months, a year or maybe even over a year”.

GeoNet had recorded more than 3900 aftershocks since the magnitude 7.1 quake on September 4, he said.

I’m not sure what the data is for other quakes, but the sheer number of aftershocks plus the length of time (almost five months) they extend out for seems very high.

Omori’s Law which predicts frequency of aftershock’s says:

According to these equations, the rate of aftershocks decreases quickly with time. The rate of aftershocks is proportional to the inverse of time since the mainshock. Thus whatever the odds of an aftershock are on the first day, the second day will have 1/2 the odds of the first day and the tenth day will have approximately 1/10th the odds of the first day (when p is equal to 1).

10 aftershocks 140 days after the main quake falls well outside the norm I’d say.

So how long could the aftershocks last? Well the 1811-12 New Madrid earthquakes are still producing aftershocks!

Finally back in the world of computers so have the chance to upload some new photos.

This is a macro shot of an insect synonymous with summer – Maori name is kihikihi IIRC.

Click image for larger, high resolution image

Now, off to find some coffee and unlock the secrets of the universe 🙂 Hope everyone’s had a good week & anticipating a better weekend.

National has annoucned the five short-listed candidates for Botany. In alphabetical order they are:

• Maggie Barry
• Aaron Bhatnagar
• Darron Gedge
• Jami-lee Ross
• Edward Saafi

I picked four of the five correctly. I thought Denise Krum would make it also. Edward Saafi I had not profiled previously – his local body election profile is here. Dr Saafi has a PhD and MBA, working as a biomedical health research scientist. Seems a very solid candidate. However he appears to have stood for the Destiny Party in 2005 in Mangere, so I think fair to say not my first choice.

Selection is on Thursday 27 January.

That is one of the biggest questions in world politics. Palin has a formidable PR machine around her, but this hasn’t translated into the positive numbers that she might have expected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-nyhan/sarah-palins-poll-numbers_b_810840.html

One of the more interesting poll graphs out is comparing Palin to Hilary Clinton, and unfortunately for Palin her negatives are way worse than Clinton’s were.

Palin cannot be totally discounted as she will have a well funded campaign with a lot of activists if she runs for the Republican nomination, but these numbers make it very tough for her to credibly suggest she will beat Obama in 2012.

Parliamentary staff have just been e-mailed:

This is to advise that a suspicious package has been identified outside the Executive Wing near Bowen Street.  The Executive Wing and Bowen House are being evacuated and Bowen Street has been closed off by the Police.  Emergency services are responding.

Please follow Police and Parliamentary Service security staff  instructions.

Hopefully it is an innocent package.

UPDATE: It was

Victoria Robinson reports:

Continued name suppression for a 46-year-old celebrity charged with disorderly behaviour has been slammed by the Newspaper Publishers’ Association.

The entertainer, who faces the charge after being arrested in downtown Auckland on December 29, has been accepted into a police diversion scheme.

Judge David Harvey, in Auckland District Court, adjourned the celebrity’s application for non-publication of his name, which media is expected to oppose, until February 9.

It is worth noting that the Judge here has not granted name supression. It has been applied for, and interim supression cotinues until the hearing on Feb 9th. The problem lies with the defendent trying to gain permament name supression, and the inability to schedule a substantive hearing more quickly.

The defendent has either had some shockingly bad advice, or has ignored some good advice/ If he had never sought name supression, the incident (which was minor and he got diversion for) would have been a page five or seven story lasting one news cycle.

But the use of name supression has meant half the country wants to know who the 46 year old is (the other half already know), and you’ve had other 46 year olds deny it is them.

So the end result for the 46 year old is a tonne more bad publicity that if he had never had name supression.

Newspaper Publishers’ Association chief executive Tim Pankhurst said yesterday that media companies should challenge the suppression to protect the principles of open justice.

“The courts in this country are far too ready to offer suppression. A justice system operates the most effectively in full sunlight and any sort of suggestion that people of influence … are protected, undermines the system.”

I agree with Tim Pankhurst that media should challenge this, but note that the Judge has not yet made a decision on suppression. Also worth noting that the Police did not oppose interim name supression. This is part of the problem – we need a culture in the Police where they challenge name suppression in almost all cases.

On two local issue in the last few days concerning Wellington City Council, Mayor Celia has popped up in comments on this blog and others to defend or explain her statements.

Regardless of politics, this is a good thing – to have a Mayor who engages through social media when it is relevant to do so. Not too many capital cities would be able to claim this.

In some regards this is no big surprise. Celia was in fact one of the inaugural Councillors of Internet New Zealand (then ISOCNZ). But good to see being Internet savvy continue in office.

In terms of previous Mayors, I guess one could claim that Andrew Williams used to engage with Whale Oil – but I’m not sure abusive faxes at 4 am fall into the same category as a blog comment 🙂

UPDATE: And in today’s Dom Post, an issue on which Celia has my full support:

Mayor Celia Wade-Brown is using her influence to pressure Wellington Airport into axing plans to put up a King-Kong-sized Wellywood sign.

But airport chief executive Steve Fitzgerald says the project is still alive, with a decision likely in about two months.

The airport was granted resource consent last year by Wellington City Council for a Hollywood-style sign to stand 3.5 metres high and span 28 metres along the airport-owned hillside next to Miramar cutting.

Ms Wade-Brown said she had flexed her new-found mayoral muscles when speaking informally to airport officials.

“I have influence and I hope the Wellywood sign won’t happen.”

If it does, I predict it will last less than a week. The Judean People’s Army will assemble a commando team to destroy it. The idea of a “Wellywood” sign is ghastly. If there has to be something, my preference is a giant weta.

Diane Joyce at Stuff reports:

An outspoken judge has jailed a man for 28 days for swearing at him from the public gallery, saying he’s had enough of criminals and their supporters being rude and arrogant.

Judge Tony Adeane, a district court judge working in Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne, said Gisborne had a “particular problem” with bad behaviour in court, after he jailed the man for abusing him.

Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson said yesterday that members of the public yelling out to a judge was relatively new.

However, Law Society president Jonathan Temm said such behaviour had become “par for the course” in many courts, although it remained “very uncommon” for someone to be jailed for abusing a judge.

Perhaps it will become less common after this. My first reaction was that 28 days might be a bit over the top, but then I saw the specifics:

Grant, 26, of Gisborne, was in the public gallery to support a friend appearing in court. He was unhappy at the outcome of his friend’s appearance and, just as he was leaving, yelled out to Judge Adeane: “Is that all, c…?”

If you call the Judge a cunt in court, then you absolutely should be jailed for contempt.

TVNZ reports:

He said Labour would talk to the Maori Party if it was “in the interests of New Zealanders to do so”.

Goff would not, however, talk to Hone Harawira, saying there were “lots of things I fundamentally disagree with him on”.

He said Labour would also work with Winston Peters, though New Zealand First is currently out of government.

Personally I would choose Harawira over Peters anyday.

But what is significant is Goff ruling out even having discussions with Harawira.

Because many on the left want him to join forces with Bradford and McCarten and form a hard left party. If Harawira stood for them, they would not need 5% to get elected.

But Goff is apparently saying he would choose opposition, rather than deal with Harawira. Is this really his position?

Business Insider reports:

Peter Thiel, famous for making billions off Facebook, tells us he’s finally found “utopia” – New Zealand.

Thiel has been investing heavily in the country.

He’s already made two noteworthy venture investments there in the space of a few months. In October 2010, he invested $3 million in online accounting firm Xero, which is based (and publicly traded) in New Zealand. Then he invested $4 million in Pacific Fiber, an ambitious company that is building a fiber-optic cable from Australia to New Zealand to the US and is raising $300-400 million more to do so.

I’m a fan (and share holder) of Xero, and a fan of Pacific Fibre. I want them to suceed. But they need to attract capital to do so, and not enough capital exists in NZ.

 

These investments aren’t just one-offs. Thiel has set up a local venture firm called Valar Ventures. Valar Ventures LP was registered in New Zealand in July 2009, more than a year before Thiel’s first known New Zealand investment, and is managed by Valar Capital Management LLC, based in San Francisco, according to official records. Valar Ventures LP’s offices are at prominent New Zealand law firm Bell Gully, which suggests it doesn’t have full time staff yet. Peter Thiel founded two other companies in New Zealand: Second Star Limited, where he is sole shareholder, and Silverarc Advisors. …

Here’s a thought: maybe Peter Thiel wants to turn New Zealand into the next Silicon Valley. Or maybe even the libertarian utopia of his dreams.

Investing in a huge undersea fiber optic cable is typically a safe, low-return investment, which isn’t the kind of investments Thiel goes after. But bringing high speed internet into New Zealand would be a first step to turning the country into a new Silicon Valley.

The name of Thiel’s firm Valar Ventures comes from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings universe. Thiel is a huge Tolkien fan and the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed in New Zealand. In Tolkien’s legendarium, the Valar are deities who created the world of Middle-Earth (portrayed by New Zealand in the movies) and then descended on it to help nurture its infancy and development.

Reached about this idea, Thiel said: “New Zealand is already utopia.  But Silicon Valley and New Zealand can learn a lot from each other, and we want to help make that happen.” So Thiel is clearly in it for the long run.

So when Labour and Winston First rail against foreign investment, think about this article and the fact we should be celebrating that someone like Thiel wants to invest in NZ.

One News reports:

A collective from the Maori Party filed an official complaint against fellow Maori Party member Hone Harawira late last night.

Maori Party President, Pem Bird, says he received a complaint yesterday from Waiaraki MP Te Ururoa Flavell, supported by Te Tai Tonga MP Rahui Katene, and Maori Party co-leaders Dr Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia. …

Bird said the party is seeking an early meeting to try and resolve the issues raised by the complaint and an urgent hui will be held on Friday.

“We have invited Hone Harawira, Te Ururoa Flavell on behalf of the complainants, and the Chair of the Te Tai Tokerau Electorate Council to be present at the hui. It will be chaired by the Party’s co Vice President, Ken Mair. The hui will be private and confidential to enhance the chances of successfully resolving the issues in the complaint,” Bird said.

I’m not sure what Harawira’s game plan is. Sometimes it looks like he is trying to take over the Maori Party and mould it in his own image. Sometimes it looks like he is trying to engineer a split.

It is hard to see how he can be a candidate for the Maori Party at the next election, with his recent actions. If there is a schism, he will take a lot of activists with him.

What will be interesting is whether he stands as an Independent, tries to set up his own Maori Party or becomes the Leader of a hard left party which includes Sue Bradford and Matt McCarten. If he does the latter, then they will get representation in Parliament on the basis of Harawira retaining his seat which is likely. Not sure though that Hone would want to be seen to stand for a party which is not a Maori nationalistic party.

Overall this is pretty good news for the left. One danger however is that a Harawiara led hard left party could attract activists and voters from the Greens, and they can’t afford to drop under 5%.

Hat Tip: Whowuddathort

Dave Burgess in the Dom Post reports:

Cars could be banned from Courtenay Place under a proposal from Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown.

The move would affect about 6500 private vehicles that use Courtenay Place on weekdays. It is aimed at creating a more reliable bus service and lifting bus use.

A shop-owner says it is an “absolutely ridiculous” plan that would hit retailers and was for a traffic problem that did not exist.

I have to say that I don’t think there are huge traffic problems on Courtenay Place, and can’t see what the problem is to be solved by this.

My preference is for the vision of Bob Jones – to have Courtenay Place to Lampton Quay turned into a huge mall, with no buses or cars. I’m not sure it is entirely practical, but would love to see it costed.

Removing vehicles from Courtenay Place would build on the successful opening of Manners Mall to buses, which had created a public transport spine through the central city, Ms Wade-Brown said.

The only thing sucessful about it, is that none of the pedesterians hit so far have been killed.

Any proposal will go out for consultation.

Amy Glass at Stuff reports:

Police heading the Pike River operation have agreed to release documents detailing why they decided to abandon their efforts, a lawyer for some of the families says.

Barrister Nicholas Davidson QC said yesterday Police Commissioner Howard Broad had said the information would include reports and the advice police had received from experts and the Mines Rescue Trust.

“For the first time, we will be able to take that material and consult with our experts,” Davidson said.

I am surprised that this is only happening now. In my opinion it would have been far more sensible of the Police to have shared these reports with the families before they made a decision, ask the families for any feedback on the reports and then make a decision. Then at least you would have families being able to understand the rationale for the decision.

Kate Chapman has a summary at Stuff:

Police Commissioner Howard Broad has hit back at a damning report into police culture, saying it looks “like a huge slapping”.

Well that is because it is Howard.

Ms Collins said yesterday that outgoing Commissioner Howard Broad had implemented a lot of changes, but “pockets of resistance” still needed to be tackled.

“Those are areas where the incoming commissioner [Peter Marshall] will be wanting to address.”

Mr Marshall starts in April.

Marshall, having headed up an overseas force for a few years, is in an ideal position to come in and make some changes.

Another problem area was rostering, with a graph of staff on duty in 2007 showing heavy staffing early in the week and fewer over the weekend when crime and demand were at their highest.

“It is appalling to think that, back in 2007 … there were more police officers on duty on a Monday night than … on a Saturday night,” Ms Collins said.

Hopefully that has changed or is about to.

Among the report’s findings were:

No action over poor-performing senior staff at police headquarters.

Police files revealed “highly inappropriate behaviour” by staff which was worthy of dismissal but received only a warning.

Rosters based on staff needs, not risk and demand.

Many staff felt the wrong people were sometimes given senior roles.

Wide inconsistency in the abilities of area commanders.

Little confidence in the detection of any concerning staff behaviour.

The commission of inquiry lacked impact as a driver of change.

Police need to implement “basic management concepts”.

That a pretty damning list. The inconsistency in the ability of area commanders has been there for a long time – you have a few good ones, but also a few who really are not up to it.

Three tributes to Denis Dutton worth highlighting. The first below is from James Allan in The Spectator Australia.

Dutton

Also Eric Crampton in The Press bids farewell:

Denis loved sharing his victories. One of the earlier emails I received from Denis was simply a link to a story in Canada’s National Post, talking of the wonders of ALD and of its author, improbably situated in Christchurch. I teased Denis that I hadn’t thought him a fan of hagiography. He replied in classic form: “I despise hagiography, except when I’m the hag.”

Heh, Denis would like all these tributes then.

Denis was a liberal and a humanist who saw how much progress we’ve made and who railed against those who would thwart it through pseudo-science and superstition. He loved beauty and, in explaining it to us, helped us better to appreciate it. Thank you, Denis.

The Press also has this piece from Robin Maconie farewelling Denis.

The NZ Herald editorial:

He first made this proposal during the election campaign when it was suggested that voters in the rest of Auckland might resent paying for the former Manukau City Council’s free pools. Mr Brown’s answer was that he would extend the policy to the whole of Auckland. This week he repeated that intention as one of his “100 projects in 100 days”.

Free swimming pools would be a complete waste of money for most of Auckland. This blessed city has a vast free swimming pool all around it. Two harbours and the Hauraki Gulf provide warm, calm, sheltered bays in abundance.

Nobody in Auckland lives much more than a 15-minutes drive from a beach, and most live within easy reach of many.

Unlike Wellington, where there are basically no beaches where the water is warm enough for swimming.

Better still, the issue could be left to local boards. Those new elected bodies are waiting for the Auckland Council to define their role. This time last year Mr Brown’s website offered them responsibilities that included liquor licensing, local street management, libraries, swimming pools, public toilets, camping grounds and beach control.

If they are bulk-funded from council revenue for services such as those, the boards would asses the importance of a free pool to their communities against the need for other amenities. No public body is better placed to make that assessment. Voters can punish boards that misread their priorities.

Leaving it to the local boards is a good idea.

But Mr Brown is not talking of delegating the decision. He says his next step towards free pools for all is to commission a report on the cost, equity and fairness of the proposal. He says he picked up an “overwhelming sentiment” in the election that free pools would be welcome across Auckland.

Doubtless he did. Nobody rejects a free offer in election campaigns. He could as easily have offered free gymnasiums, free golf courses or free dance classes in the name of health and opportunity.

Please, don’t give him ideas.