Liam Hehir writes at Stuff:

We now have four official alternative designs for a national flag and, in a few months, a winner will be selected to go up against the Blue Ensign next year.

The selection of the final four has seen an intensifying of criticism of the coming referendums from liberal pundits. They do not like our current flag, which is not sufficiently politically correct for their tastes, but they object to the alternatives as well. This has seen a late rally behind the Red Peak design by Melbourne-based Aaron Dustin, which is now the official preference of the twittering classes.

This all comes a bit late in the game. Until now, the principal position of the liberal punditry has been to ridicule, rather than engage in, the flag debate. Toby Manhire, the Left-wing columnist who started the belated campaign forRed Flag, justified his former apathy for the consultation procedure on the basis that it made him feel “… infantilised, herded into a nationwide social studies project”.

This is a weird complaint, because many commentators have conducted themselves like ageing teenagers on the subject. They think the Blue Ensign is lame, but they also saw themselves as too cool and ironic to participate in anything so closely associated with John Key. They’ve therefore contented themselves with sardonic digs from the sidelines.

With the announcement of the shortlist, however, they seem to have suddenly realised that things are going ahead without them. They want another chance.

But it’s too late. Legislation could be passed to revise the shortlist in accordance with the tardily expressed preferences of Manhire and company. The question is why the rest of New Zealand should now trouble itself for the sake of people who until last week largely acted as if the whole process has been beneath them.

Red Peak is an okay design. I’d vote for it over the current flag, but I much much prefer the Kyle Lockwood designs. And so do New Zealanders according to the UMR poll. The Red Peak design barely featured.

If people wanted it, they should have tried to create a buzz for it prior to the short-list, not after it.

Red Peak is a case in point. While some elites consider it politically and aesthetically superior to the supposedly gauche official alternatives, a quantitative survey of the by UMR Research suggests that the shortlisted designs are broadly aligned with the public’s preferences.

By contrast, Red Peak was the preferred candidate of less than half of 1 per cent of respondents and just 1.5 per cent of those surveyed included it in their top four designs. In fact, of all the long-listed designs, Red Peak ranked among the least designs for all demographic groups surveyed – together with the similar looking Wā kāinga/Home. Notably, it was also the least favored flag of Māori.

In the UMR survey, Red Peak came 35th out of 40.  It was the third least preferred among men, 4th least preferred among women, 3rd least preferred among under 30s, and the least preferred among Maori. In every demograpic it is one of the least preferred designs, but because a a few people on Twitter sign a petition, the media make it a major story and demand the Government ignore its own rules, and over-ride the independent panel – to pick a design the public appear to hate.

It’s also 4th least preferred with National and Labour voters and overall least preferred with Green voters.

An NBC poll in New Hampshire finds:

• Sanders 49% (+15% from July)
• Clinton 38% (-9%)
• Clinton Net Favourability -24% (all voters)
• Sanders Net Favourability +13%
• Jeb Bush Net Favourability -17%
• Donald Trump Net Favourability -25%

And in general election matchups:

• Bush 48% Clinton 43%
• Trump 45% Clinton 46%

Stuff reports:

A San Francisco-style development is being tipped for Wellington’s Shelly Bay with ferries running to and from the city – and a cable car up the hill to a new housing area.

It is understood that high-end homes, restaurants, a brewery and  shops are also planned for the run-down area.

Speaking from China last night, property developer Ian Cassels confirmed that a cable car  had been considered in conceptual plans for the area.

Shelly Bay could potentially be the most beautiful and sought after area in Wellington. It has great views, but apart from the great Chocolate Fish cafe, is mainly crumbling ex Air Force buildings.

Work had started to investigate upgrading the decrepit Shelly Bay wharves to safe standards, which would cost an estimated $300,000 to $350,000.

East by West Ferry managing director Jeremy Ward confirmed he had met Cassels’ Wellington Company about starting a ferry service to Shelly Bay.

If the Shelly Bay wharf were fixed, the ferry company could start a service “pretty much straight away” for weekend runs.

A ferry from Queen’s Wharf to Shelly Bay is a great idea. I’d use it often.

NZ on Screen has the 1973 interview of Norman Kirk by David Frost.

Daily Media Review looks at the problem of the two popular schools in Epsom being near capacity. He quotes David Seymour who says:

If the current trend of intensification continues either

a) the schools will grow beyond being able to operate the way that attracted people in the first place.
b) the zones will have to shrink cutting people out
c) a new school divides the zones in half cutting ppl out

In any of those cases people lose out heavily.

My suggestion is allowing the BoT’s [board of trustees] to put a date on their zone (not retrospectively).’

The author doesn’t like the idea that someone who buys a new apartment or house in Epsom would not be deemed in zone, but someone who rents an existing place would be.

He proposes a new school, such as:

The problem raised by Mr. Seymour with regards to introducing a new school is that it would cut the Grammar school zone in half, and the property values of those excluded from the zone would be reduced as a result, but why should the new school interfere with the existing Grammar zone in any way? I feel the following solution will keep all parties happy, including the schools, the current property owners, landlords, apartment owners, etc, and will be more in accord with the principles the ACT party promotes:

Why not retain the current school zones for Auckland Grammar, Epsom Girls Grammar, and St. Peters College, and apply the very same or overlapping school zone to the new school? Parents will have the ability to apply to all 3 of the current schools as well as the new school, and when any of the schools reach capacity the excess students can be accommodated at the remaining schools. This option would give the current schools the opportunity to shrink their school numbers should they need to, and all property owners would still remain in the Grammar school zone and the value of their properties would remain the same – the school zone might even be able to expand.

This option also has the added benefit of being in alignment with the principles of the ACT Party, in that the 3 current schools and the new school would have to compete with each other for students in the area, and academic results and standards would be the draw card to the parents.

I quite like this option. It allows for competition and choice.

The Herald reports:

The Government will today announce an emergency package to allow hundreds of Syrian refugees to come to New Zealand.

The one-off intake will go “over and above” New Zealand’s annual refugee quota, but will not number into the thousands, Prime Minister John Key said this morning.

The move follows domestic and international calls for governments worldwide to do more to help the 13.5 million victims of the biggest refugee crisis since World War II – pressure which effectively forced Mr Key’s hand a week after he ruled out further measures until after a review of refugee quotas next year.

It comes after more than 7000 asylum seekers surged across Hungary’s western border into Austria and Germany over the weekend.

They were met with cheers, hugs, hospitality and the hope of a new life.

This morning Mr Key confirmed he would announce a package to take “over and above our normal quota” of refugees in response to the humanitarian crisis in Europe.

I think this is the right thing to do. It is being part of a global citizen.

However it is worth reflecting on the two types of refugees, and New Zealand.

Countries generally take refugees in one of two ways. The first is they turn up in your country and seek asylum. We get relatively few of these, because we are an island country. I’ll come back to this.

Over the last decade we have averaged 300 claims a year for asylum. Around 74% are declined and 26% approved. So that is around 80 a year.

Accepting these refugees is mandatory under international law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. If you are one of 145 countries that has signed the convention, you are obliged to take in refugees who have genuine asylum claims of persecution

On top of that mandatory right of asylum, countries can voluntarily take refugees – even if they are not in their country. 20 countries do this formally through the UNHCR with a quota. We have an annual quota of 750, plus refugees can later bring in family members which means on average 1,000 people a year enter through this route.

On top of that you take take refugees outside the quota as Helen Clark did with the Tampa and John Key is doing with Syria.

Now some may argue that because we have so few refugees turn up on our doorstep, as we are a remote island/s, we should radically increase our quota. Now I think our quota should increase in line with population growth, but caution against a massive increase.

It is true that one of the benefits of being a remote island/s is we don’t get 250,000 refugees turning up at our border. But there are many disadvantages to being a remote island – it makes it much harder for us to trade with the rest of the world, travel, and get the exposure to other countries and cultures that you do by being part of a continent. We should be careful about throwing away the benefits, when we will remain with the disadvantages.

The Institute of Economic Affairs blogs on a study into the minimum wage:

One limitation of the great majority of these studies is that they focus on employment in the first few months, or at most a few years, after a minimum wage hike – we label this time frame as the “short run”.

The supply of and demand for both products and factors of production such as labour and capital might well be more elastic in the long run than in the short run. This means that the effect of changes in wages on the number people employed might be greater in the long run. Indeed, we can think of a process by which firms change the way they produce their goods in reaction to higher labour costs is slow.[1]  In some cases, for example, this process might require firms which operate a large low-skill labour force to shut down in the face of higher costs and these firms may be replaced by firms that operate with fewer workers and more capital. This is a process that takes time. The long-run loss of jobs in response to the minimum wage hike might be bigger than the short-run effect often estimated in the literature.

Our recent research presents new evidence on how the restaurant industry, the largest US employer of low-wage labour, responds to minimum wage hikes. We document three new findings:

·         Fast food restaurants are more likely to shut down (exit) and open up (enter) after a minimum wage hike.

·         The rise in entry is higher among chains, which use less labour.

·         There is no change in employment among existing fast food restaurants that continue to operate – the fall in employment arises as a result of more labour-intensive restaurants being replaced with less labour-intensive restaurants.

This is very interesting. Basically they find that there is no fall in employment in the businesses that stay open. They just increase prices I guess. But that some businesses go under and they get replaced with businesses that are less labour intensive.

To interpret these findings, we develop a model where new restaurants can choose how mechanised their production will be. However, once they open, they cannot change the way they make their products. Economists call such a technology ”putty-clay”: the initial choice of how to operate is flexible like “putty”, but once the firm is open, the production process hardens into “clay” and cannot change. For instance, some restaurants might choose to have customers order their meal from a worker, while others might set-up a computerised ordering system. But, once the systems are established, they do not tend to change. This does reflect the reality of how businesses operate – of course old establishments can change how they use technology but, in this industry, it is new entrants that tend to bring about changes.  

This model predicts that when the minimum wage increases, labour-intensive restaurants are more likely to shut-down, whereas capital-intensive restaurants are less impacted by the minimum wage and may even open new restaurants to replace labour-intensive competitors that exit.

In this model, the employment loss due to the minimum wage grows over time because labour-intensive restaurants are slowly replaced with more capital-intensive restaurants. This process is slow, since it is costly to shut down a restaurant and open a new one in its place. The results of this research suggest that a typical minimum wage hike causes an older fast food restaurant to shut down one year earlier than it otherwise would have done.

So minimum wage hikes are great for robots, but not so great for the humans who lose their jobs. But it may lead to a more productive sector of the economy?

Previous work has shown that all the higher labour costs of the minimum wage are pushed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. But, what about the level of job losses? How big are the potential effects? These are difficult to measure precisely, although our estimates suggest that a 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage reduces restaurant employment by less than 1 per cent one year after the hike. Our model, which matches this very small short-run effect, as well as the facts on restaurant entry and exit rates, predicts a 4 per cent reduction in restaurant employment in the long run.

This is only for restaurants, but it may hold true for other sectors. They key thing is that the short-term loss in jobs may be a lot less than the long-term loss.

Stuff reports:

Former Oceania football boss Charlie Dempsey was paid nearly $400,000 to abstain from the vote for the 2006 World Cup hosting rights, a new book alleges.

The Scottish-born New Zealander, who died in 2008, was a central figure in the controversial vote in 2000 which awarded the tournament to Germany.

The book by investigative journalist Andrew Jennings, The Dirty Game: Uncovering the Scandal at FIFA, alleges Dempsey was paid US$250,000 (NZ$398,000) not to vote for South Africa, thereby awarding the tournament to Germany.

An extract from the book has been published in the Daily Mail, outlining how Germany got the hosting rights.

Dempsey declined to take part in the final round of the voting process. He had voted for England in the first two rounds but was under instruction to back the South African bid once England were eliminated from contention.

Instead, he abstained and left the vote at 12-11 in favour of Germany. Had the vote been tied, Fifa president Sepp Blatter, who had previously expressed his desire for football’s biggest tournament to be held on the African continent, would have held the deciding vote.

The book alleges a German man “fixed” Dempsey.

“Anticipating the possibility of a 12-12 draw, the arrangement was that Charlie would leave the vote, go back to the Dolder Grand hotel and collect a briefcase left for him in the cloakroom. It contained US$250,000. A cab would rush him to the airport for the flight home.”

This would surprise no-one. FIFA is to global sports what the mafia is to sanitation services.

Christopher Snowdon blogs:

As reported last week by Guido and Catallaxy Files (but no mainstream media outlets that I know of), tobacco sales increased by 0.5 per cent in the first year of plain packaging in Australia. I didn’t want to comment until I’d had a change to look at the newly published stats in depth, but I have now done so and the figures in Guido’s report are spot on.

21,901,393,720 cigarettes were sold in the twelve months before plain packaging was introduced. In the next twelve months, 22,016,130,420 cigarettes were sold. This is a rise – a small rise but a remarkable one considering that sales had been consistently falling for many years before the policy was introduced.

And this is on sales, not just manufacture.

As Sinclair Davidson has explained, advocates of plain packaging have done two things wrong in order to claim that there was a 3.4 per cent decline in tobacco sales in the first year of plain packaging. Firstly, they compared the calendar years 2012 and 2013 despite plain packaging starting at the beginning of December 2012. Obviously, they should be comparing December 2011-November 2012 to December 2012-2013. If they did that they would see that the difference is just 0.8 per cent.

So on the raw figures, the decrease was 0.8% – less than most previous years.

The second thing the campaigners willfully ignored was the tax refunded on tobacco products which were never sold to the public. This is a significant number of cigarettes when you consider that lots of branded tobacco products had to be taken off the market when plain packaging was introduced and were later destroyed. According to newly released data from the Australian government, it amounted to 284 million sticks. When these cigarettes are subtracted from the pre-plain packaging period, it becomes apparent that sales-to-consumers rose by 0.5 per cent in the first twelve months of plain packaging.

Here’s the calculation:

In the twelve months before plain packaging was introduced (Dec 2011-Nov 2012), the figures were as follows:

Manufactured cigarettes: 19,738,170,960

Cigarettes from rolling tobacco: 2,447,248,750

Never sold to the public: -284,025,990

Total: 21,901,393,720 

In the twelve months after plain packaging was introduced (Dec 2012-Nov 2013), the figures were as follows:

Manufactured cigarettes: 19,433,987,920

Cigarettes from rolling tobacco: 2,582,142,500

Total: 22,016,130,420  

Sales increase in the first year of plain packaging = 0.524%

I’d be interested in the data for the following 12 months also. The challenge is how to work out the impact of one policy (plain packaging) when other policies (excise tax increases) are also occurring.

This is why I think New Zealand should do a regionally based trial. Then after three years one could compare the change in smoking rates in the region/ with plain packaging with the regions without.

Bill Courtney, an opponent of charter schools, has done an analysis of their 2014 finances. It is embedded below in the interest of free debate.

NZ Charter Schools_Finances 2014

Bryce Edwards looks at the first year of National’s third term, both the good and bad. Starting with the bad:

A long list of negative episodes have plagued John Key’s third term. Ranging from very damaging to trivial, these sagas have far outnumbered the few achievements of the Government since re-election.

National went into the election with little policy, but even what it did have has fallen by the wayside. Progress on other core right-wing policy issues has been woeful.

What’s more, the Government has struggled in key areas, such as formulating a popular climate-change response, convincing the public about sending troops to Iraq again, dealing with state surveillance and now the global economic problems.

The unfavourable ratio of damaging episodes to achievements strongly suggests National is now suffering from third-term blues, or “third-termitis”. This affliction is normally taken to mean that a government has become stale, arrogant and prone to errors.

The Government’s critics rightly ask where the fresh ideas are, or whether the Government has any vision left. …

Increasingly there is an acknowledgement of National’s “succession problem”. Key remains popular, but the lack of replacement options indicates another weakness.

Bill English is in the twilight of his career, Steven Joyce is technocratic and uncharismatic, Paula Bennett is seen as a lightweight and junior ministers are too inexperienced.

As is often the case with long-term governments dominated by a single figure, no new talent can prosper. It’s only once back in opposition that the party can truly see who is capable of rising to the top.

But he then looks at the other side:

A glance at any opinion poll indicates National’s extraordinary popularity. For example, the latest Herald-Digipoll puts National on 51 per cent support, and Key on 64 per cent.

Not only has the Government not dropped in support since its re-election, it is just as popular as when it first romped to power in 2008. In fact, the public’s so-called honeymoon with Key – which began in late 2006 – has lasted an astonishing nine years. Clearly, Key has the potential to go down in history as New Zealand’s most successful prime minister. …

Key has made his mantra “it’s the issues that matter” which determine how New Zealanders vote. Since the Global Financial Crisis, voters have been focused on economic-related issues and the traditional concerns of education and health.

Therefore, as at last year’s election, the central role of the economy is the main factor in National’s success. National continues to be perceived as a cautious and competent manager in difficult and uncertain times. This year’s Budget simply reinforced that image.

National’s pragmatic and clever manoeuvring is also a big factor in its success. The party has been careful not to stray too far from the views of middle New Zealand. Part of this is simply down to the dominance of pragmatists in Cabinet and caucus.

Key’s most influential supporters – English, Joyce, McCully and Bennett – are hardly neoliberal ideologues.

This doesn’t mean National hasn’t veered down the path of radicalism occasionally – most prominently in state-housing sell-offs and the social investment bond exercise. But such initiatives have been exceptions.

And Key’s instincts are to pull back from the extremes. When Labour has started to get traction on an issue, National has found ways to deftly shift positions. This normally involves adopting moderate policies, often adapted or stolen from opposition parties.

On key issues such as inequality and child poverty, National has sought to assuage worries with increases in benefit rates. Similar moves have been made to deal with growing concerns about capital gains taxes, foreign house buyers, and poor-quality rental properties. Much of this might be tinkering but it sends a strong message that the Government has listened.

The public don’t have to agree with every solution the Government comes up with, but they do want the Government to be listening and doing something.

A third reason National has been able to withstand scandal and embarrassment is it has already accumulated substantial political capital. Key has previously impressed the public with his Government’s management of serious problems – most notably the GFC, the Christchurch earthquake and the Pike River disaster. Competent political management in these areas has produced a reservoir of goodwill.

National therefore has the benefit of the doubt. The public has been ready to forgive or ignore any missteps. Even the ponytail embarrassment, which was viewed negatively by National supporters, could be forgiven. When a politician is largely trusted, as Key is, his failings will be discounted by voters.

In contrast with the Clark Government’s third-term, when Labour tended to dig its heels in rather than apologise or reverse from an unpopular direction, Key is more ready to U-turn or admit mistakes.

In general, Key appears to be aware of the need to combat third-termitis. His attempt to rejuvenate the party while in power has been unequalled.

Today’s Cabinet of 20 contains only 11 ministers who have been there since the start. Even more starkly, five of the six ministers outside Cabinet are new. And the wider caucus has been refreshed. More than a quarter of the caucus are new MPs elected last year.

The rejuvenation of Cabinet and caucus has been a real success story, but you can’t rest on your laurels. Rejuvenation needs to be constant.

Bryce then looks at the overall situation:

Ambition will be a powerful driver in keeping the Government on the popular path. Obtaining a fourth term is the Holy Grail for National and it’s within its grasp – the iPredict website of political betting, lists National’s chances as being 62 per cent.
Such an achievement would push Key ahead of Keith Holyoake’s record of 12 years as Prime Minister, making him the longest-serving PM since Richard Seddon, who served from 1893 to 1906.

And after that, a fifth term is distinctly possible. That would have Key even beating Seddon’s 13 years at the top, making him New Zealand’s longest-serving PM.

Generally the chances of a Government getting a 4th term should be around 20% at best. To be at 62% probability of a fourth term says something about both the Government and the Opposition.

The Telegraph reports:

The Hill reports:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton head-to-head, according to a new poll released Friday.

 

The poll by SurveyUSA finds that matched up directly, Trump garners 45 percent to Clinton’s 40 percent.

 

In other head-to-head matchups, Trump beats out Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by 44 percent to 40 percent; Vice President Joe Biden by 44 percent to 42 percent; and former Vice President Al Gore by 44 percent to 41 percent.

 

• Men – Trump +15%
• Women – Clinton +5%
• Under 35s – Clinton +19%
• 35 to 49 – Trump +12%
• 50 to 64 – Trump +15%
• 65+ – Trump +17%
• Whites – Trump +17%
• Blacks – Clinton +34%
• Hispanics – Clinton +19%
• Asians – Trump +2%
• Independents – Trump +13%
• Moderates – Trump +4%
• North East – Clinton +4%
• Mod West – Trump +18%
• South – Trump +6%
• West – Clinton +2%

The Washington Post reports:

The world has been transfixed in recent weeks by the unfolding refugee crisis in Europe, an influx of migrants unprecedented since World War II. Their plight was chillingly highlighted on Wednesday in the image of a drowned Syrian toddler, his lifeless body lying alone on a Turkish beach.

A fair amount of attention has fallen on the failure of many Western governments to adequately address the burden on Syria’s neighboring countries, which are struggling to host the brunt of the roughly 4 million Syrians forced out of the country by its civil war.

Including whether New Zealand can do more to help – and I think we can.

Less ire, though, has been directed at another set of stakeholders who almost certainly should be doing more: Saudi Arabia and the wealthy Arab states along the Persian Gulf.

As Amnesty International recently pointed out, the “six Gulf countries — Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain — have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.”

These are very wealthy countries.

That’s a shocking figure, given these countries’ relative proximity to Syria, as well as the incredible resources at their disposal. As Sultan Sooud al-Qassemi, a Dubai-based political commentator, observes, these countries include some of the Arab world’s largest military budgets, its highest standards of living, as well as a lengthy history — especially in the case of the United Arab Emirates — of welcoming immigrants from other Arab nations and turning them into citizens.

So why won’t they help?

Brian Gaynor writes:

Another issue is the partial privatisation of Genesis Energy, Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power and whether taxpayers have had a positive outcome from this strategy.

One of the major arguments against the sharemarket listing of these electricity generators was that the Crown would lose 49 per cent of its dividend income if it sold 49 per cent of these companies.

The figures in the accompanying table tell a different story.

The Crown will receive total dividends of $440 million from the three electricity generators for the year to June, when they are all 51 per cent owned by the Government, compared with $485.8 million two years ago when they were all 100 per cent tax-payer-owned.

Thus the Crown has received $4308 million from the partial sale of these companies yet its dividend income has fallen by only $45.8 million. This is a remarkably positive outcome for taxpayers.

That’s an amazing success story. This is what Labour fought so hard to stop!

The reason for this is that companies usually lift their performance after an IPO, mainly because they are subjected to far more scrutiny. It is somewhat similar to a football team performing much better in front of 50,000 fans compared with at a training run with only a few coaches.

For example, Genesis Energy has gone from one shareholder to more than 55,000 shareholders, Meridian Energy from one to nearly 49,000 and Mighty River Power from one shareholder to in excess of 100,000.

Shareholders matter.

In addition, all 24 directors of these three companies are shareholders, as are a large number of senior management.

Allowing directors and employees a stake in a company is a great way to improve productivity and profitability.

It is patently clear that a sharemarket listing and 51 per cent Crown ownership has been a win-win situation for taxpayers and investors in Air New Zealand, as well as the three electricity generators.

Taxpayers have done really well from this.

The Herald reports:

How do you explain to the children that Daddy can’t find his way home?

“Initially, I told them that he had some important work that Nauru needed him to do and we weren’t sure how long it was going to take,” said Katy Le Roy.

But the children said, “Oh, we need him more!”

Eventually, Le Roy’s husband, Roland Kun, told his children on the phone from Nauru that his passport had been cancelled and he had to try to get another one.

That shouldn’t take long? It is 81 days and counting since Kun was removed from a plane as he was about to depart Nauru for New Zealand.

The children, Rosa, Yoshi and Hana, are 20 months, 5 and 7 years. The older two understand that their father is trapped.

Le Roy: “They are very upset and they miss him a lot. They know he desperately wants to be back home but that he can’t travel until he gets a passport.”

Kun is a native of Nauru, an MP who appears to be being punished for criticising a government that marches to nothing other than its own tune.

Stopping someone from going overseas is what you expect from the former Soviet Union countries, not Pacific countries.

And in January 2014 its judiciary was dispatched in a coup because, it is claimed, Nauru’s leaders didn’t like its decisions.

When Kun and several other opposition MPs complained about what had happened to the judiciary, they were suspended without pay in May last year. Kun became trapped in June this year. There was no warning and no charge has been laid against him. He is in limbo, living with Nauruan relatives and free to drive around the 21sq km island but not to leave.

Absolutely appalling. No rule of law.

A fascinating profile of Dame Margaret Bazley in The Press. Some extracts:

But she remained conscious of the accusation that her appointment had been tokenism, so when “a bloke’s job” came up, she applied for it and got it. That was Secretary of Transport, in which a workforce of 4500 was boiled down to just 50, she says. I had to be sure I heard that right. Fifty? You can understand why some called her the government’s hatchet woman. 

“You’re not there to do soft things. You’re there to do what’s right and proper. Often that doesn’t please people.” 

Popularity and correctness are not the same thing.

Nor is there is any room for doubt. You have to be convinced that it’s right and proper. But what happens if you feel it is not? 

“You have the opportunity to persuade ministers. I’ve always known that if I can’t support the government of the day, be loyal and serve that government, then I have the other option, which is to resign.” 

She has never approved of those who stay and pursue their own agenda.

Which is what the county clerk in the US is doing – refusing to do her job.

“I remember when Louise Nicholas started talking, I thought: this is going to end up with an inquiry. They will need a woman to do that and they will have difficulty finding someone. The thought crossed my mind that I would have been one of the few women that had ever managed blokes. Since I took over the male side of Sunnyside in my 20s, I learnt how to manage men. It’s quite different to managing women or integrated men and women.

“I’m very pleased I did the police inquiry. I think Louise Nicholas has changed the way the police operate. My report has kept the police challenged right up to the present day. They have made colossal change.”

Of course, there was resistance. Police hierarchy tried to block parts of Bazley’s inquiry and the three men at the centre of the rape allegations reportedly hired a private investigator to dig into her past.

I did not know that. Appalling.

Although, as noted earlier, retirement has been a relative concept. ECan still occupies Wednesday to Friday. Thursdays are for meetings of the commissioners. Fridays are for visits.

“I love going out to meet the farmers. They really are lovely people to work with. It’s one of the perks of the job.”

What a great idea – actually meeting people affected by your decisions, rather than just sitting in an office.

Bazley talks of broken relationships that have been repaired, and not just with farmers but with Ngai Tahu and the Canterbury mayors, who have signed up to a Canterbury Economic Development Strategy that directs them towards different work programmes. Timaru Mayor Damon Odey works on broadband, Waimakariri Mayor David Ayers works on work skills for school leavers, and so on. 

So working as a team.

Curia’s monthly newsletter is out. The summary is:

There were two political voting polls in August – a Roy Morgan and a NZ Herald DigiPoll

 The average of the public polls has National 22% ahead of Labour in August, up 8% from July. The current seat projection is centre-right 64 seats, centre-left 48 which would see National able to govern alone.

A new section shows the current New Zealand poll averages for party vote, country direction and preferred PM compared to three months ago, a year ago, three years ago and nine years ago. This allows easy comparisons between terms and Governments.

In the United States Donald Trump is polling at almost three times the level of the next highest polling contender in the Republican field. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton’s net favourability rating has dropped 7% in one month.

In the UK the refugee crisis in Europe appears to be impacting support for the UK staying within the EU. Net support for remaining has dropped from +20% to +7%. Jeremy Corbyn leads in the polls to become the next UK Leader.

In Australia Abbott’s approval ratings have plummeted this month and the Liberals and Labor are tied in polls for the Canning by-election despite the Liberals willing it by 24% in 2013.

In Canada the trial of suspended Senator Mike Duffy hurts Stephen Harper, as testimony about an alleged bribe from Harper’s former chief of staff is aired. The NDP continue to lead in the polls.

We also carry details of polls on the NZ Flag, future party leaders, private prisons, foreign house buyers, TPP plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 to subscribe yourself.

The new section is also below:

 

	9 years ago	3 years ago	1 year ago	3 months ago	Last month	This month
National	43%	44%	49%	50%	46%	51%
Labour	41%	32%	26%	29%	32%	29%
Greens	6%	14%	13%	11%	13%	10%
NZ First	4%	5%	5%	7%	8%	8%
Nat over Labour	+2%	+12%	+23%	+21%	+14%	+22%
Nat over Lab/Gre	-4%	-2%	+10%	+10%	+2%	+12%
Right Direction		50%	64%	63%	51%	54%
Wrong Direction		35%	25%	27%	33%	34%
Net Direction		+15%	+39%	+36%	+18%	+20%
Preferred PM
National Leader	15%	45%	47%	44%	40%	40%
Labour Leader	37%	13%	12%	9%	8%	8%
NZ First Leader	4%	4%	5%	9%	7%	7%

Party Vote

National’s party vote is around the same as three months ago and a year ago. It is significantly higher than three years ago and 10% higher than Labour were at in Government nine years ago.

Labour’s party vote is up from a year ago and the same as three months ago. It is lower though than where they were at three years ago and 12% lower than where National were at in Opposition nine years ago.

The Green’s party vote is lower than it was a year ago and three years ago.

NZ First party vote is much the same as three months ago, but higher than a year ago and three years ago.

Country Direction

The net direction is greatly lower than three months ago and a year ago, but still positive. It is higher than the same time three years ago.

Preferred PM

Key’s Preferred PM rating is 3% higher than Helen Clark’s of nine years ago. It is lower though than where he was a year ago and three years ago.

Little’s Preferred PM rating of 8% is much the same as three months ago. It is however lower than David Cunliffe a year ago, and David Shearer 3 years ago. Comparing to National in Opposition nine years ago, it is around half the level Don Brash was at.

Peters’ Preferred PM rating is higher than a year ago, and three years ago.

The Herald reports:

Wheel clamping in New Zealand is set to become a thing of the past with a new code of conduct that aims to almost eliminate the practice.

An industry working group is preparing to release the new code, which places clamping at the end of options for private companies working in parking enforcement.

This is good.

The key element to the new code was a “hierarchy of enforcement options”, led by a “breach notice” – what most people would call a “ticket”, he said.

“The breach notice should be the main enforcement tool for most parking operators. It’s the most effective tool while also balancing the need to provide a fair enforcement penalty for motorists.” Fairness in cost was a critical factor and “no one can justify $200” – the maximum clamping penalty, he said.

“It’s vastly more expensive [than a breach notice] and it doesn’t free up a parking space.”

Under the next option, companies would call in a tow truck, which would free up parking spaces in congested areas.

“You would only use a wheel clamp for repeat offenders where they are not causing an obstruction. That is going to be a change in the way some companies operate because their approach is to use a wheel clamp only.”

The hierarchy makes sense – especially that just a breach notice or ticket should be the standard response.

If it is a choice between being clamped or towed, I’d rather be clamped. However if you are causing an obstruction, then towing is the appropriate response.

Stuff reports:

A top doctor speaking at a national immunisation conference in Hamilton has likened parents who refuse to vaccinate their children to flat earth advocates.

The stark message from Dr Noni MacDonald, a Canadian leader in paediatric infectious diseases comes as medics discussed ‘vaccine hesitancy’, including the example of a Waikato family during the recent measles outbreak who thought they would be safe from the disease if they ate the right foods.

Yes if you eat two Big Macs a day you won’t get cervical cancer if you’re a boy.

MacDonald, who has done work for the World Health Organisation, said the only way to protect against infectious diseases was by getting immunised and those who contended otherwise  “are the people that think the world is flat, not round”.

“Measles is probably our most infectious virus and people just don’t get it,” she said.

“You’re nuts if you don’t immunise, it’s like denying children the right to grow up and grow old.”

Basically, yes.

Before we got modern medicine, around three out of ten children would die before they were five years old. Thanks to modern medicine, it is now less than 1 in 100.

In NZ the change has been, for Maori, post WWII. It was a mortality rate of 12% in 1949 and today is 0.8%.

Not all of that is due to vaccinations, but some of it is.