Three more columns lamenting the lack of leadership. First Barry Soper:

Politics is a tough business but if you answer questions honestly and in good faith you generally survive relatively unscathed.

And that brings us to the Prime Minister. In answer to a question on Friday morning, whether she was considering cutting ties with Curran, or fire her, Jacinda Ardern said no, she believed the minister had paid the price.

Yeah well the night before she’d accepted her resignation and the perception left from her comment was that Curran was safe.

That doesn’t reflect well on what was clearly obfuscation by Ardern – nor does this whole saga reflect well on her leadership. Curran committed what were two significant strikes, meeting secretly with people who sought to gain from her role in Government, she should have been fired after the first and after the second it was a no-brainer.

Yep.

Her bumbling confession about her use of her private emails to conduct government business simply added to her unsuitability to hold ministerial warrants.

Amazingly Ardern still insists that she had confidence in Curran to continue as a Minister.

Then Mike Hosking:

I assume no one is missing the irony that poor old Clare Curran could see what needed to be done, but her boss once again couldn’t.

And because of that it raises once again the question as to just what, in Ardern’s mind, you have to do to get sacked.

Bash up your press secretary maybe?

Now, in her mind Ardern might well still be sitting there this morning having convinced herself she is right, and we are all wrong. And that some sort of touchy-feely approach to discipline is the modern way.

But it doesn’t add up. You can’t, on one hand, stand there talking about the high standards you expect of your ministers, while on the other hand defending a serial offender and refusing to sack them and offering up excuses about having a bad day at the office.

The two don’t gel.

And Audrey Young joins in:

Jacinda Ardern is as much to blame as Winston Peters for the debacle last week over refugee numbers.

Both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister should be admitting to their colleagues at tomorrow’s cabinet that they were equally culpable for creating a perception of Coalition chaos, and they should be looking for way to avoid it.

Peters was largely blamed for contradicting Ardern last week over a commitment to double the refugee quota.

In fact, she contradicted him – although that is a minor point.

He was interviewed first by reporters in Nauru and when the reporter substituted “Labour policy” for “Government policy” as though they were the same thing, like Pavlov’s dog he went into aggressive denial.

That reaction was then misinterpreted as Peters insisting there was no way he would ever in a million years ever agree to a refugee quota of 1500.

And the aggression to a television viewer appeared aimed at Ardern, rather than the press pack he was addressing.

A short time after Peters’ interview, Ardern was asked in Wellington if the Government was committed to doubling the refugee quota to which she foolishly said yes.

They were both unwittingly complicit in setting a trap for the other.

Maybe they should you know talk to each other, as they are meant to be PM and Deputy PM.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says she’s “gutted” to learn of the death of New Zealander Abby Hartley in a Bali hospital.

Hartley, 41, was on a second honeymoon when she became ill. She had been in an induced coma in hospital with her family by her bedside. She had been taken to hospital at the start of August. The Hamilton woman died on Sunday.

Her family had asked the Government for help to medevac her back to New Zealand but Ardern ruled out the assistance.

Today the Prime Minister offered her condolences to the Hartley family.

“I learned yesterday, late afternoon, of Abby’s passing. There’s no doubt that this obviously is gutting and including for all the New Zealanders who reached out to support the family,” Ardern said on Radio NZ.

“The money was raised to bring her home and it is incredibly sad that that opportunity just didn’t eventuate.”

Condolences to her family and friends. 41 is far too young to die.

Ardern said help could be provided to Kiwis abroad, but that did not absolve insurers of their obligations to customers.

“When it comes to significant medical events, then that’s when we’re always hoping and seeking the assistance of insurers to support New Zealanders, when there are situations like medevacs,” she told TVNZ.

I agree the state shouldn’t step in to cover people without insurance. However that is exactly what this Government has done in Christchurch. So there is a lack of consistency.

Newshub reports:

Nelson College Headmaster Gary O’Shea dons his black gown and walks on stage to address a sea of students. 1,100 curious faces stare back at him, from fresh-faced new entrants to seniors sprouting stubble. He starts to speak about strength, love, honour and mateship – what it means to be a man.  

“There is this oasis of single sex calm,” he says. “Those personal conversations you can have support them at a really fragile time in their lives. I see strength in that.”

Fewer than 2.5 percent of New Zealand’s schools are boys’ only. But Mr O’Shea believes their students have a significant advantage. A newly-released report, commissioned by the Association of Boys’ Schools of New Zealand, backs him up.

The study, by Victoria University’s senior education lecturer Dr Michael Johnston, compared the performance of young men in Years 11-13 at single sex schools with those at co-educational schools. Examining results from 2013-2015, he found students at boys’ schools were higher achievers, regardless of the school’s decile rating or the students’ ethnicity. Maori students at low decile schools performed significantly better in single sex education.

• In 2015 the median percentage of male school leavers attaining University Entrance was 48% in boys’ schools, versus 28% in co-ed

• In low decile (1-4) boys’ schools 32% gained UE, versus 15% in co-ed

• For Maori in low decile schools, 22.7% gained UE, versus 7.6% in co-ed

So very clear evidence that on average boys do better in single sex schools. Not all boys, but on average.

We know that boys are doing badly in the NZ education system. They do worse than girls at all levels. They leave earlier than girls, and far fewer boys go on to tertiary education.

So surely one solution is to make sure that we have enough single sex boys schools around, so families have that choice available for them.

But off memory there has been no new boys schools for over 20 years. The Government will only agree to new schools that are co-ed. If so, this is wrong. Parents should have the choice of both a co-ed and a single sex school within a reasonable distance. Otherwise I fear boys will overall continue to do badly at school.

The Herald reports:

Labour backbencher Greg O’Connor has received a “stern phone call” from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern after criticising her handling of Clare Curran’s resignation.

O’Connor told Heather du Plessis-Allan on NewstalkZB today that Ardern’s handling of Curran’s decision to resign on Friday “could have been done better”.

“Yeah it could have been done better, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. I’ll tell you what, it will be done better next time,” he said.

So O’Connor said that the handing of the resignation could have been done better. This surely is a self-evident truth. And he gets hauled over the coals for it.

This suggests that the PM thinks her handing of it was perfect and couldn’t be better!

A spokesman for Ardern confirmed that Ardern gave O’Connor “a stern phone call” about his comments tonight.

“She has relayed her disappointment to Greg O’Connor around his remarks, and he has affirmed his support and confidence in the Prime Minister,” the spokesman said.

Rather sensitive.

Modern Girls in Bed was one of the best plays I’ve been to for a long time.

The synopsis is a couple of millenial girls decide to stay in bed forever because life sucks. And they get visited by five famous New Zealand women from the past.

Now on the basis of that summary, you might think it won’t be very good. But in fact a very clever plot and some great acting makes a great production. It has heaps of laughter, lots of drama and some very poignant sadness.

The main actress is Maria Williams as Ally. She is the one who decides to stay in bed forever. Williams makes Ally funny and real with her insistence on peppering every sentence with “absolutely.

Her BFF and “sister” is Petra (played by Isadora Leo). She is less convinced of the wisdom of a bed-in but joins in to support her friend.

The five women from the past quite literally pop up in their bed. You have Katherine Mansfield (Alex Lodge), Kate Sheppard (Amy Tarleton), Heni Pore (Bronwyn Turei), Helen Hitchings (Renée Sheridan) and Akenehi Hei (Maia Diamond).

The interactions with the girls and each other are often funny. Katherine Mansfield flirts with everyone and seems very taken with Helen Hitchings. Kate Sheppard is extremely preachy and a highlight of hilarity is Ally telling her to STFU.

The first half is funny and light hearted. You are wondering a bit though about what it is all about.

The second half provides the answers. Katherine Mansfield, Kate Sheppard and Heni Pore turns into Ally’s aunts. Helen Hitchings her mother and Akenehi Hei becomes a more modern nurse.

Some of the characteristics carry through. For example the self righteous Kate Sheppard is now a Green Party List MP always going on about how hard it is to save everyone.

You become aware of why Ally is really so upset and refusing to come out of bed. You see her relationship with her BFF tested. And you see the struggles of a family facing a terrible challenge.

The all female cast do a great job of bringing their characters alive – the idiosyncrasies of their historical characters and the foibles of their modern characters.

As I said this was one of the best plays I have seen in recent years. It’s on at Circa until 22 September.

Rating: ****1/2

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern are in danger of moving towards a co-prime ministership in all but name.

It won’t be formally described that way. But the New Zealand First leader — who is officially Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister — is demonstrating that he is prepared to go against Ardern if she announces policies that are either not already announced in the Speech from the Throne or are not contained in the coalition and support agreements which Labour signed following last year’s election.

This week’s kerfuffle over how many additional refugees should be allowed into New Zealand was a stark illustration of just how aggressively the NZ First leader will play his hand on such issues.

Right now, Peters has considerable power in the Coalition and is not afraid to use it.

We have a situation now where anything a Minister says can’t be taken as a Government position, unless Winston says so. Up until then, it is merely a ministerial preference!

Stuff reports:

The Tax Working Group is understood to have stopped short of recommending a broad-based capital gains tax, in an interim report due out within days.

The working group chaired by Sir Michael Cullen was tasked with designing a capital gains tax for consideration by the Government, but is expected to push back any firm recommendation to its final report which is due to be published in February.

It had been widely expected that the Tax Working Group (TWG) would recommend a broad-based capital gains tax on the likes of sharemarket and property investments as the centrepiece of tax reforms on which Labour would fight the next election.

However, doubts began creep in earlier this year that the Government would ultimately back the plan, amid concerns the new tax would be unpopular and would cause rents to rise without delivering much in the way of extra revenue for at least a decade.

This will be very interesting.

I’ve heard that in fact a Capital Gains Tax will result in a drop in revenue for the Government in the first few years. So if Labour wants one so they can fund more of their big expensive promises like free tertiary fees, then the CGT won’t help them much.

Paul Drum, chief executive of accounting body CPA Australia, said in a newspaper column that “a close reading of the tea leaves” suggested the “highly important and politicised” issue of the capital gains tax “is probably to be parked for further consultation and input”.

Sir Michael Cullen hinted that was on the money, saying he had “not reacted strongly to that comment”.

So sounds like it is right.

One was that there was “no money” in the medium term for any government from introducing a conventional capital gains tax (CGT) – if it was assumed that house prices and stock markets were close to reaching a plateau.

“The only way to raise any revenues from it would be to tax unrealised gains that have accrued to date. That would be bad policy and suicidal politics.”

Can’t rule out Labour wanting to do it.

The best Capital Gains Tax would be one on all capital gains, including the family home. However it would need to be accompanied by significant cuts in income tax to compensate. And I can’t see Labour ever cutting income tax.

It had been widely reported that NZ has the 2nd lowest business confidence ratings in the OECD.

But I have good news. In the latest stats, we have moved from 2nd to 4th lowest. We are now in 35th place!

But alas the reason we are now 4th lowest, not 2nd, is not that things have got better in NZ.

South Africa has slipped behind New Zealand. Yes if you try and pass a law to confiscate land based on race, without fair compensation, you fall below even NZ in business confidence.

Turkey has also now fallen behind New Zealand. Their economy is collapsing along with their currency, so good to see we are now ahead of them.

The Herald editorial:

Reasonable candour with the public — or “transparency” as she likes to call it — is another of the qualities we should be able to expect from a Prime Minister. At 8am yesterday morning, a few hours before Curran’s resignation was to be announced, Ardern was asked by Newstalk ZB’s Chris Lynch in a recorded interview whether she had considered firing Curran over her recent performances.

“No,” the Prime Minister replied, “because I think she has paid her price”. She went on to say she had high expectations of her ministers, “but I also accept from time to time they will have bad days”.

A few hours later she announced she had accepted Curran’s resignation the previous night.

Curran had offered the resignation and Ardern had accepted it, so strictly speaking her answer to Lynch was not false. She had not fired Curran and was not about to. But she must have known her answer to him was giving a completely false impression.

The statement was designed to mislead. And it was totally unnecessary. Why have the PM go on radio and deceive listeners as opposed to the far better option of announcing the resignation a few hours earlier than you planned.

The Prime Minister’s answer was needlessly misleading. It was a small lapse in the life of this Government so far, as is the loss of a low-ranking minister, but too many such lapses and its life could be short.

It’s not the first time the PM has done this. Remember her insistence that Labour knew they had the numbers to elect Mallard Speaker, and that the deal they did with National on select committee numbers was out of the goodness of their heart. It was blatantly and transparently untrue.

A very astute piece by Steven Joyce:

Low business confidence in New Zealand is definitely a thing. Lots of people are debating how real it is, but surely the important question is what is causing it.

The argument of those seeking to play down business confidence surveys goes something like, “the world is growing strongly, the fiscal parameters are good, monetary policy is good, so businesses need to get over themselves.”

The first point is correct. While there is lots of foreboding going on about bad things that could happen in the world, almost none of it has happened to date, and the world is growing faster than it was predicted to back when New Zealand was expected to be now growing at 3-4%. 

Given we were growing at that rate from late 2014 to mid 2017 when the world was growing much more slowly, all things being equal we should if anything be growing faster now, not more slowly.

The second and third points about fiscal and monetary policy are also mostly correct, but it is the constant focus on them as if they were the whole economic story and sufficient on their own that reveals the true elephant in the room.

Economic policy is in fact a three-legged stool, fiscal policy, monetary policy, and microeconomic policy. You can’t successfully operate an economy, especially a small one like New Zealand, without all three working together.

So what is microeconomic policy?

Microeconomics is everything that operates at the firm level in the economy – all the regulations and policy settings that impact directly on businesses. These are things like employment law, immigration settings, competition law, resource allocation, innovation settings, tax policy and the government’s investment in infrastructure.

It is microeconomics that drives much of firms’ actual operating conditions. Along with interest rates and exchanges rates, it is access to capital, skilled people, resources, markets, the necessary infrastructure and importantly the consistency of those settings, that tell the owners of businesses that it is a good time to invest and grow their business.

If you start playing with those settings in an arbitrary way while ignoring the economic consequences of those changes, then firms will simply stop investing. They’ll either wait until there is more certainty, or not invest at all.

And for the first time in a long time, most firms have negative investment plans.

Politicians as a species are often quite poor at handling microeconomic policy. It’s complicated, and it is prone to populist soundbite decisions that don’t achieve their objectives and have bad economic consequences (think of the oil and gas ban). There are also plenty of strong single interest lobby groups in favour of changes that ignore or play down any negative consequences.

Yet microeconomic policy arguably has a bigger effect in New Zealand than in larger countries. We are a small country far away from the rest of the world. Our businesses are smaller and margins here are much tighter than in the US or Europe, so policy changes that get shrugged off in bigger countries really hurt our nation of small businesses.

Our government is currently rearranging, often negatively, not one or two but nearly every aspect of microeconomic policy. Employment law, resource law, company taxes, innovation settings, immigration settings, the infrastructure plan, it’s all being thrown up in the air at once, and not surprisingly kiwi firms are taking fright.

And the only certainty is that every change is likely to mean increased costs for employers.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Transport has plans costing between $23 million and $35 million to fix a controversial cycleway through Grey Lynn and Westmere that hardly anyone uses.

Preliminary designs for the 3.2km cycleway were unveiled to a community liaison group on Wednesday, described by one participant, Gael Baldock, as “utterly ridiculous” for a few cyclists.

A Herald time-lapse video outside the West Lynn shopping village on Richmond Rd two months ago showed six cyclists using the cycleway between 7am and 8am on a fine weekday. A further two cyclists ignored the cycleway and rode on the street.

Now we should be cautious about data which is just one data point. But if that day was representative, then daily use of the cycleway could be just a dozen or so per day, as 7 am to 8 am would be peak time.

Now $35 million for six cyclists is around $6 million per cyclist.

An almost new beautiful Cabri helicopter costs around $500,000.

Even if there were 70 cyclists a day, it would be cheaper to buy each of the 70 cyclists a helicopter.

I’m all for cycleways that are affordable and get used. But $35 million for a cycleway used by a handful of people is mad.

Stuff reports:

Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has met with the Reserve Bank and asked it to consider rules that would compel this country’s big banks to keep branches in the regions.

Jones raised his concerns about big profits and retreating regional service with Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr in a meeting on Wednesday.

“He’s taken on board my concerns, he has undertaken to go away and do some further work and establish what, if anything, he might be able to within his statutory responsibilities,” Jones said.

“He didn’t boost my hopes but, I have to say, that he gave me a very fair hearing.”

Thank goodness the Governor is independent as he will of course do nothing to implement this.

Bank branches are going the way of post offices. They are closing down because no one uses them. To insist that a bank branch must be kept open for the 1% of New Zealanders who are luddites is ridiculous.

You can do 99% of your banking online now. And for big stuff like mortgages, the banks have their staff come out to your home.

I avoid bank branches like the plague. Only when a client insists on paying by cheque (around once every two years) will I go into a bank branch.

Marty Sharpe writes at Stuff:

There are a few things you get used to when you spend a lot of time in court. First, Māori make up the vast majority of defendants; second, it’s dominated by the same surnames and families coming up year after year; third, alcohol and/or drugs are almost always involved; and four; gang influence, specifically from the Mongrel Mob is insidious.

There is a problem, but if you ask me it’s not the justice system, it’s the system that allows these kids to become victims and consequently offenders.

I agree. The justice system is not perfect and can always be improved. But the real issue is kids growing up abused, illiterate, surrounded by drugs and alcohol. They become criminals in turn and the cycle carries on. Breaking that cycle when they are age 25 is near impossible. Getting them into a safe home at 1 year old might make the difference.

If there was one thing I’d want to impress on anyone who was interested, it’s that prison sentences are not given out lightly. Listening to some commentators and critics, you would think the judiciary was stacked with men and women itching to send defendants to prison.

In fact, judges and others in the justice system are at pains not to send people to jail. Community-based sentences, fines, community work are commonplace. A jail sentence is a rarity and usually only handed down when the argument for a custodial sentence is overwhelmingly persuasive. Often as a means of protecting others.

Judges are actually required by law not to send people to prison, unless there is no suitable alternative taking into account the gravity of their offending and need to protect the community.

John Armstrong writes:

The trip had already met all the requirements to be classified as a public relations disaster even before her Air Force Boeing 757 had cleared the runway in Auckland en route to arguably the South Pacific’s prime economic basket-case.

Stuff reports:

Seven becomes three as New Zealand takes a step towards adding another Great Walk.

The Department of Conservation announced on Thursday that the Queen Charlotte Track, in the Marlborough Sounds, Te Paki Coastal Track, in Northland, and Hump Ridge Track, in Southland, had made it through to the final round.

All great walks.

If you were deciding purely on scenery I’d say you’d go for Queen Charlotte. Amazing views of water and bush. Would also be a real boon for Picton.

Hump Ridge is a loop track which makes it easier for people to do. It is in Fiordland though which already has three great walks.

Don’t know much about Te Paki but if you want geographical balance will be a contender as North Island has so few Great Walks.

The Herald reports:

The stressed prison network has had a Great Escape – a string of innovations allowing inmates and those charged with crimes better access to justice services has seen a huge fall in inmate numbers.

Our prisons now have 1000 fewer inmates than official projections and the prison population – around 10,200 – has fallen by 600 people in the past six months.

The changes haven’t involved keeping out of prison any people who should have been locked up.

Excellent. Everyone wants fewer people in prison, but not if it creates more victims by letting recidivist criminals out early.

Instead, it has seen “embarrassingly simple” wrinkles ironed out of the system which appear to have improved people’s access to justice.

A number of smaller projects had been underway for about 18 months but Corrections minister Kelvin Davis signed off on a permanent programme in January 2018.

So started under National.

The programme of change has been led by Corrections deputy national commissioner Leigh Marsh.

He said he had relied on experience earned on the prison frontline and worked with courts and police staff with similar real-world experience.

Marsh said innovations included trying to understand why so many on electronic bail were “failing and clogging up the system”.

When the process was studied, it was found those arrested with literacy issues were being handed complex forms to fill in that they couldn’t understand.

About 70 per cent of those currently in prison have literacy level considered insufficient for modern life.

Others couldn’t supply phone numbers so addresses could be checked as suitable bail addresses because the number was saved on the phone which was removed after they were arrested.

When prisoners were asked how they intended getting the phone numbers to arrange bail, they had reportedly planned writing letters to family.

Marsh said his reaction was: “This is madness. We can do better than this.”

There were now advisers who were available to talk to those who were freshly remanded to better understand why they had been refused bail – and to help obtain details such as phone numbers.

Great work. If people are eligible for bail, they shouldn’t be in prison because they didn’t fill in a form properly.

A smartphone app had also been developed meaning those on bail had their conditions at hand, would receive reminders of court dates and could ask for exceptions if needed rather than deal with the previous complicated telephone-based system.

What a great idea.

HDPA writes:

This whole episode has done massive damage to this government – the Prime Minister especially.

What’s become obvious today is that our Prime Minister can dance around the truth when she wants to.

This morning on Chris Lynch’s show she did a little bit of that tricky stuff

When asked: “Are you considering cutting ties with her though? Firing her?”, the Prime Minister answered: “Ah no because I think she’s paid her price.”

That was this morning, but she’d already accepted Curran’s resignation last night.

To be fair, she was asked if she would fire Curran. She said no. And that is true, she didn’t fire her, Curran resigned

 But she also said: ”I think she’s paid her price”, which was probably designed to make it sound like Curran’s job was safe.

Probably just to buy time. Just to be able to release the information when it suited her – late on a Friday afternoon when everybody’s started thinking about the weekend already.

So much for Ardern saying her Government was going to be the most open and transparent the country’s ever seen.

Hard to expect your government to do it when you can’t even, right?

It’s also made the Prime Minister look weak.

Duncan Garner agrees:

So, does Jacinda Ardern have the fear factor?

You’ve got to be kidding. She’s very different to those who have gone before. She doesn’t carry their baggage, experience or ego. She’s learning to lead. But others are less kind.

Shambolic and weak is what she is, according to National. Of course they would say that, but this time it’s hard to disagree.

Even Clare Curran got sick of waiting to be sacked and called the PM on Thursday night to pull the plug.

Doesn’t that tell you everything? Curran has been a walking and wounded target for weeks and needed to be put out of her own self-inflicted misery. That the PM couldn’t see that is worrying.

Her lack of decisiveness in dealing with Curran actually made things worse for Curran in the end. It was a lose-lose.

Who is the running the show? Well, the PM is but she defers and delegates and runs things by committee, it seems. She also looks unwilling to target NZ First MPs.

She had her chance to intervene and help gravely ill Kiwi Abby Hartley get home from Bali, she stayed hands-off.

She had her chance to be caring and compassionate but looked cold and agnostic and said Winston this is yours

She had her chance to meet the Nauru refugees, she backed away.

She had her chance to say yes, we’ll take more refugees, but she allowed Winston to win by saying over my dead body. She deferred to him. Why?

Winston won the crime debate too, by keeping the three strikes law.

He’s running the show at 7 per cent. Good bang for their buck for his voters.

It’s pretty obvious Winston has all the power and his Ministers are untouchable by Ardern.

But Jacinda Ardern needs to be more than a figurehead.

She needs to stand for something, or not stand at all.

Stand against low standards and poor performance.

But don’t stand by and be walked all over, because that’s what it looks like for our Prime Minister right now.

She needs to remind Winston her party got 37% and his party only got 7%.

Ardern must take back control. If the country wanted Winston and Shane to run things they would have voted for them. 

But the infamous lads from the North couldn’t win in their own backyard, beaten by two no-name Nats.

We’re being effectively governed by a party 93% didn’t vote for.

The Herald reports:

A British diver who helped in the rescue of the trapped boys from a Thai cave is to sue Elon Musk for branding him a child rapist.

Vernon Unsworth said he was preparing to start legal action against the Tesla billionaire imminently, the Daily Mail reports.

The 63-year-old is considering using Thai courts because they could hand Musk a jail sentence. 

Wow, he must be seriously pissed off. But he has every right to be.

The diver from St Albans in Hertfordshire described Musk’s allegations that he had a child bride and had moved to an area notorious for child sex trafficking as ‘100 per cent untrue’.

“I’ve been told to be very careful because this guy may do anything to make my life difficult,” he said.

Musk had accused Unsworth of being ‘a paedo’ during the rescue of 12 schoolboys from the Tham Luang Nang Non cave complex.

Earlier this week he renewed his baseless attack by telling a reporter to stop defending “child rapists” and claimed Unsworth had moved to Thailand for a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time”.

Unsworth’s girlfriend, Woranan Ratrawiphukkun, 40, yesterday said she was “no child bride”. She met him seven years ago, when she would have been at least 32.

I can’t believe he was stupid enough to repeat the defamation plus add on some false facts. There is a world of difference between a 32 year old and a 12 year old.

This could be a huge amount of damages.

Damien Grant writes:

Our Prime Minister has a nice way with words. The fall in business confidence wasn’t an elephant in the room, she declared recently, but a big neon flashing light with fireworks going off behind it.

Ok. Nice imagery. But then she wheeled in the CEO of Air New Zealand, Christopher Luxon, as the head of a new advisory group to help deal with the flashing lights.

Now, I’m sure Luxon is a fine fellow and, to be sure, if you put me in charge of our national carrier it would need a new bail-out by the time we got to afternoon tea.

But the overlooked pachyderm is still sitting in the corner wondering how on earth Ardern and Robertson think that the head of a billion dollar quasi-monopoly under majority crown ownership in any way represents New Zealand business.

He doesn’t. I heard him speak at a breakfast event recently and nearly choked on my muesli as he waffled on about ‘sustainability’ and ‘culture’.

The entire revenue of my business would be a rounding error in Air New Zealand’s lost luggage department. Sustainability for me is paying the wages this week and knowing I can do so next week. I don’t care about ‘NZ Inc’, ‘bringing New Zealand to the World’ or any of the other nauseating corporate-speak of those who live in gilded cages.

I have staffing issues and shareholder disputes. The photocopier is on the fritz and for some reason the IRD likes to audit me (they probably read these columns). I spend half my life worrying about the fact that I spend too much time worrying and not enough time making sales.

If my business fails I’d be unable to pay my mortgage and we’d have to move. Probably to Kingsland.

There is nothing unique about me. There are about three hundred thousand other small business owners facing the same pressures. Farmers, lawyers, plumbers, mechanics, debt collectors, musicians and PR flunkies all live this twilight existence.

Grant hits the nail on the head here. For most small business owners, it is about can I pay the bills on time. It is about having the business guaranteed by you personally. About standing to lose your house, if your business fails.

Air NZ is a great company, and we need big businesses to do well. Luxon is an excellent CEO.

But Labour shows their fundamental disconnect with the private sector if they think a Council of big business leaders will make small businesses feel better about the future.

As I said in the update to my previous post, the transcript sent to me by the PMs Office was not a transcript. It missed out key words.

The actual e-mail to me said:

Here’s the transcript from the IV with Chris Lynch, Newstalk ZB this morning.

Have you considered cutting ties with Clare Curran? Some would say she’s a liability. Keep him mind that she didn’t put a meeting in the diary and she lost her position in cabinet for it.

Are you considering firing her? No, because I think she’s paid a price. I have huge expectations of my ministers and those in the ministry but I also accept that from time to time they will also have bad days. I have to kind in mind that we do want to make sure that we don’t set the bar so high that you have the situation that if you show a bit of human frailty you lose your job over it.

The actual transcript is:

CL: Have you considered – have you considered as prime minister cutting ties with Clare Curran, because some would suggest she’s becoming a liability to your government.

JA: Keep in mind that she didn’t put a meeting in the diary and she lost her position in cabinet over it.

CL: Are you considering cutting ties with her, though, firing her?

JA: No, because I think she’s paid her price. See, I have huge expectations of my ministers and those in the ministry, but I also accept that from time to time they will also have bad days. So, you know, I have to keep in mind that, you know, that we do want to make sure that we — don’t set the bar so high that you don’t, can’t have, you know, the situation where if you show a bit of human frailty you lose your job over it.

That is a very significant difference. It is an omission that is material and should not have occurred.

I wonder if the faulty transcript was sent to others in the media?

This just shows again that the political management is so lacking. They’ve turned a story about Curran resigning into a story about the PM.

I just can’t comprehend why they didn’t announce the resignation last night or at 7 am this morning. Surely no one would really advise the PM “Hey lets hold off the announcement until midday even though you have a media interview at 8 am and will be asked about this”.