City to Sea

EveryTrail – Find trail maps for California and beyond

The City to Sea Walkway was the final walk of my summer of 13 big Wellington walks. Probably the most challenging as there are almost no flat parts to it, you go up and down almost a dozen times.

The official guide says this walk takes six hours but I managed to do it in just under three hours. Did this one solo as everyone else was busy so you go faster when not talking and walking! Got to listen to some the Economist podcasts until me headphones died.

Starts at the Bolton Street Cemetery and goes up into the Botanical Garden up to the Cable Car. Then down into Kelburn Park and through the Mount Street Cemetery at VUW. You then head along above the Terrace past Boyd Wilson Field and down into Aro Valley.

Then up through Tanera Park and the community gardens there passing into Central Park. You go up over the Renouf Tennis Centre and into Nairn Street Park and Prince of Wales Park. then through some town belt into McAlister Park .
After all the parks you hit the Berhampore Golf Course, then trek up from that to the Tawatawa Ridge and then mainly downhill until you hit the climb up to the Oku Street Reserve. From there you go down into Shorland Park in island Bay on the South coast.

It’s my favourite walkway as it just sneakily manages to link all these discrete parks together, while winding its way from the city to the South coast. Many great views to be enjoyed.

A Sonja Lawson complained to The Press Council:

Miss Lawson phoned a complaint to the editor of Taranaki Daily News, followed up by a letter, alleging factually incorrect and misleading information relating to the ‘abusive faxes’ column comment. She followed this up over a month later with a further letter complaining about both articles. 

She complained that no response had been received to her multiple calls, faxes and now letters to her claims that the articles are inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced; that her privacy had been breached as she had name suppression; that the headlines were inaccurate and misleading; that the paper had used subterfuge and had refused to correct errors. She demanded retraction and apologies in a prominent place in the paper. 

Very ironic that she is guilty of sending offensive communications, and when the paper reports this, she starts sending them numerous communications.

The editor of Taranaki Daily News responded to the Council that the published articles had been taken from a Court of Appeal decision and a hearing in the Hawera District Court, and he was unaware of any inaccuracy. Furthermore no suppression order was in place regarding Miss Lawson. …

Miss Lawson does not have name suppression (the Court of Appeal judgment is available online) and the newspaper had a right to report each case.

I’m amazed this case even went to a full hearing of the Press Council. Her allegations of name suppression are a figment of her imagination and I thought that would be enough to make her complaint invalid.

Also in terms of dopey complaints, we have an H Malcolm who complained to the ASA over this Tui billboard:

“Mine’s a Footlong

Just like Subway’s                                          Yeah Right”

The delicate complainant said:

“I believe this billboard breaches public decency by the inference to male genitalia and is unsuitable for public viewing.”

Oh dear.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Seated across from each other in a New York restaurant they made for an unlikely couple.

On one side of the table was John Howard, one of Australia’s most successful prime ministers; darling of the political Right, bogeyman of the Left after taking the role as America’s deputy sheriff in the Pacific, and becoming the villain in the Tampa affair.

His lunch companion was Helen Clark, the socially liberal former New Zealand prime minister, a flag-flying Iraq war opponent, standard bearer for the Left-wing social democratic movement – and the woman who even now, four years on from losing the election, can spark visceral dislike among many on the Right.

Mates? Of course, says Howard, after they caught up recently for a chinwag in New York.

“We don’t just exchange Christmas cards.”

It reflects well on both Howard and Clark that they worked well together, despite being from different sides of the political spectrum.

 But historic and geographical ties have not always been enough to put the relationship on a friendly footing. Before Howard and Clark it was Lange and Hawke, Muldoon and Fraser. Tension, backstabbing, and suspicion reigned.

Fraser was an idiot, and Muldoon a bully. Hawke thought Lange was a flake, and he was right. There was also Bolger and Keating – Keating was just simply untrustworthy.

Gillard and Key, again polar opposites politically, have forged even stronger bonds than Clark and Howard.

Key says getting the personal dynamics in the relationship right is “critical”. With Gillard, it helps that their partners get on as well.

Once all the official business was out of the way during their two-day summit in Queenstown last month, Key and Gillard escaped to the exclusive Millbrook resort for dinner with partners Bronagh and Tim. They did the same in Melbourne last year.

“We have a no officials, casual dinner, have a drink together,” Key said.

A good relationship between leaders is no guarantee of success, but it is almost a precursor.

The big unknown is a possible Tony Abbott government – though he and Key have already struck up a good relationship, and speak to each other regularly.

Howard, meanwhile, is confident Abbot can only be good for New Zealand.

“He’s got a good start. His wife is a New Zealander.”

Heh, that may be useful.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Just over half of those asked in a Herald-DigiPoll survey said they believed the three-year term should stay, while 48 per cent believed it should increase to four years.

That’s a promising response showing NZers are open to persuasion on this issue.

Mr Key has said any such change would be made only if there was sufficient public support, likely to be determined through a referendum.

I think there should be a binding referendum in 2014 on this issue. I would tie two things in as part of it:

• Have a fixed date for elections, removing the PM’s ability to set an early date for tactical reasons. Only have an early election is a Government loses a confidence vote.
• Don’t have the change in term come in until 2020 – ie make absolutely clear the next two terms will remain at three years. This means people won’t think it is about the current Government trying to get a longer term

David Farrar, a National-aligned blogger, supported a move to four years, saying three years was not enough time in which to assess whether new policies were working. He expected it would result in more one-term Governments – something that has happened only twice so far in New Zealand’s political history.

“People do feel three years is not long enough to judge. With a four-year term, more Governments might get chucked out after one term because people would say, ‘It’s been four years, we should have seen some impact.”‘

Three years is pretty much the shortest term in the world.

The Press editorial:

By Winston Peters’ admittedly not very high standards the questions he raised in Parliament this week about alleged fraud and corruption in the earthquake recovery were terribly thin stuff.

If they were intended to embarrass the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, they were so lacking in specifics the minister easily brushed them off.

Even if, as is more likely, they were intended for no more elevated purpose than to get Peters’ name into the news and along the way to make a casual smear and raise vague conspiratorial suggestions of corruption, they were not up to much.

They never are, but I agree these allegations were even lamer than most.

Peter Beck writes that he will not be standing again for Christchurch City Council:

I’m struggling with the committee work and the paperwork and the number of projects and plans that I need to keep up with as the council makes the major policy decisions which are its responsibility. There are others with much more ability than I have to scrutinise and work with this crucial committee work, reviewing and monitoring the proposals and recommendations of the council staff. I hope the councillors and others in our wider city community with these skills will step up and stand for election.

Many people don’t realise how much work is involved on a Council.

I have found the political infighting hard. At the council table I listen and contribute to the debate and then seek to make the best decisions I can for the city, not concerning myself as to whether or not it will win me brownie points with the electors. I’m sure my colleagues would say the same thing. But it is hard to build the trust that is really needed to ensure the very best decisions are made. It may be that the Westminster style of government with its combative culture, is the best we can hope for, but certainly at a local level, I reckon we can find better ways of governing our city.

It is a pity Beck doesn’t say who is responsible for the infighting.

Personally I blame party politics. When people are more loyal to their ticket and party, than to working together for the city. As I blogged previously if you are going to have party politics at local Council level, then you need to look at having a Mayor with more executive authority.

At this stage Bob Parker has declared that he will stand again. My hope is that there is one, and only one, seriously credible alternative so that the city has a clear choice. That is good for democracy. It is good for both candidates. Whoever is elected will then hopefully carry a real mandate of the people.

It will be interesting to see if this comes to pass, and if so who it will be.

Aaron Leaman at Stuff reports:

Some of the worst criminals sentenced to preventive detention are being freed after serving on average only 11 years in prison.

Corrections Department figures show preventive detention might not be as tough as the public perceives it to be.

A total of 22 inmates sentenced to the stiffest penalty the courts can provide have been freed on parole in the past seven years, 17 in the past three years.

The average time served was 11.7 years, despite the sentence enabling offenders to be kept locked up indefinitely.

Legislation introduced in 2002 lowered the minimum age for the imposition of preventive detention from 21 to 18.

However, it also reduced the minimum non-parole period from 10 to five years.

Thanks Labour!

However I don’t think we get enough data in this story to make conclusions. First of all the average release time of 11.7 years is just of those actually released – 22 people.

What we don’t know if how many people have not been released at all. There were 96 given preventive detention from 2006 to 2012. There may be 200 prisoners on PD in total, so the 22 released may be just 10% of the total.

I’d also be keen to see more than just the 11.7 years average. How many of the 22 were released in under 10 years?

But most of all what I really want to know is how many of those released on parole despite having PD have reoffended?

Those who get a finite sentence basically get automatic parole at two thirds of their sentence, so it is inevitable there will be a fairly high level of offending on parole for those prisoners.

However to get parole, if you have a PD sentence, is meant to be much harder – rather than a default assumption of release, there is a default assumption of no release. If not confident they will not reoffend, the Parole Board can keep them in for ever.

Hence I would expect a very very low reoffending rate for those given parole who have a preventive detention sentence. If the rate is not low, then it suggests the Parole Board is getting it wrong.

Does anyone have that data?

Dave Trott at The Gate blogs:

My favourite news story last week was about  Curtis Woodhouse.

He’s a light welterweight from Hull and he lost his title in a boxing match.

Immediately one particular anonymous person started insulting him on Twitter.

Someone called Jimmybob88.

“Retire immediately, can’t even defend a pathetic little title, you are a complete disgrace.”

At first Woodhouse tried to treat it like a joke.

But Jimmybob88’s insults got worse.

“Haha u lost u silly mug, fight a 10 year old next time if u want to actually win u waste of spunk.”

And this went on for months and months. So did Woodhouse do?

He turned the anonymity around.

He turned it from something to hide behind into a game.

He offered a Twitter bounty.

£1,000 to anyone who would give him Jimmybob88’s name and address.

Even that didn’t frighten Jimmybob88.

He knew he was anonymous and could do what he wanted.

So he kept on.

“What u going to do, knock me out like your last opponent? Ooops.”

But …

But someone did give him Jimmybob88’s address.

It was Mount View Road, Sheffield.

And his real name was James O’Brien.

And Sheffield was just 50 miles away from Hull, where Curtis Woodhouse lived.

So he got in his car and began driving over there. …

But then Woodhouse arrived at his street and tweeted a picture of it.

He tweeted that he was looking for the house number.

Suddenly Jimmybob88’s tweets became pleading.

“I am sorry. It’s getting a bit out of hand. I am in the wrong, I accept that.”

And then Woodhouse knocked on his door.

And finally, at that point, Jimmybob88 stopped tweeting.

In fact he practically stopped breathing.

He cowered inside his house and wouldn’t answer the door.

He even called a friend and begged and pleaded with him to find a way to make Woodhouse go away.

And when Woodhouse could see how pathetic the kind of person he’d been letting get to him was he got in his car and drove back home.

Leaving Jimmybob88 hiding behind the sofa.

I can just imagine him cowering at home refusing to answer the door, after he had so bravely spent months calling Woodhouse names and taunting him.

Andrew Geddis has a very informative blog post on the impact of Louisa Wall’s Marriage Bill on the adoption act. Professor Geddis writes:

A LGBT individual already may adopt a child under the Adoption Act 1955. Take the example of a lesbian woman who has a 6 month old nephew who is orphaned in a car crash, with that woman being named as the child’s guardian in the child’s parent’s will. That woman already can apply to become the child’s “parent” by way of a sole adoption order under s.3(1), and her sexuality will not be an issue in deciding whether or not such an order should be made. 

This is a key issue. There is no current ban or even reference to sexuality when it comes to adoptions. The only difference in the law will be both partners in a same sex relationship will be able to adopt (if they are married), rather than one partner adopt and the other become a guardian.

Last year there were only around 50 “stranger adoptions” in all of New Zealand to married couples. There are far, far more couples (straight and same-sex) wanting to adopt than there are children put up for adoption. So even when married same sex couples are permitted to “stranger adopt”, the number of children placed with a same sex couple will be vanishingly small.

I doubt there will be even one a year.

Consequently, the true impact of the change wrought by the same sex marriage law is to open a route for same sex couples to jointly adopt a child under s.3(3). Because a married same sex couple will be “spouses” in terms of the Adoption Act (just as married straight couples are now), they can go to court together to seek an order that they both be recognised as the parents of a particular child.

Again, that is the only real change. Instead of one partner being the adoptive parent and one being a guardian, they’ll both be adoptive parents.

Louisa Wall says much the same in the NZ Herald:

The only change that will occur if my bill passes is that if a couple marry, they will be deemed “spouses” and they qualify as joint applicants for an adoption order. That means both parents will have the same status under the law …

Mike and Virginia opened at Circa on Saturday night, and it was 100 minutes of almost non stop laughs.

It is billed as a romantic comedy about romantic comedies. The lead characters of Mike and Virginia are both lecturers in film studies and the audience at times are their class. Virginia is the ice queen who tells you how romantic comedies always have an incompatible couple (due to personality, background etc) who implausibly overcome all barriers to show love conquers all, even though it doesn’t.

Mike is the popular wise cracking Kiwi bloke, who is a published author as well as a lecturer. Of course Virginia hates him, and vice-versa and of course they form the focus of their own romantic comedy.

There is some audience interaction, which was also comic. Mike has a thesis that all films have a monster. He goes through various films such as Shawshank Redemption and asks who the monster is. He then gets to Love Actually and asks the audience who is the monster in that film. The woman behind me yells out “the writer” and we’re all in hysterics.

There were five actors making up the cast, and while in some plays there are one or two stand outs, I thought in this play all five nailed their characters.

Gentiana Lupi (you may have seen her in Eagle vs Shark) was the icy Virginia. Her character started slightly one-dimensional but as the play progressed you saw her sense of humour and playfulness.

Will Hall (Kip from Shortland Street) was perfect for laid back wise cracking Kiwi bloke Mike.

Jennifer Martin was hilarious as the young and beautiful but rather clueless student poet who falls madly in love with, well I won’t give the plot away. But you’ll love her performance.

Stephen Papps and Perry Piercey play the respective best friends of Mike and Virginia – their characters are Harry and Sally!

Papps’ Harry shares his nuggets of wisdom in a very droll fashion and generates aughs a plenty. He just fits the role of down to earth tradesman so well.

Piercey’s Sally is an actor, and gets possibly the best lines of the play. I won’t give too many plot details away but one part of it is how they are meant to be just friends with benefits but Virginia freaks out when Mike holds her hand at one point. She heads home alone complaining to Sally that Mike is getting too intimate. Sally responds with “You’ve had his dick in your mouth with no problems, and you’re complaining that he held your hand!” – classic.

The music and sound effects were done incredibly well, adding to many a dramatic moment with comic effect.

Mike and Virginia was hilariously good fun. Is on until 20 April, and well worth seeing.

The SST headline:

Call to ban ministers from share float

Except they already are. Ministers absolutely can not take part in the share float.

In fact the conflict of interest obligations are taken so seriously that when Contact Energy was sold in the late 1990s, I was one of those banned from buying shares when it floated as I worked in the PM’s Office. Now I had zero involvement in the float, saw no papers about it, but still was banned.

So a headline that suggests Ministers are not already banned is absolutely misleading.

We asked our readers if they wanted a similar rule to Australia’s “Standards of Ministerial Ethics” that require ministers “to divest themselves of all shareholdings other than through investment vehicles such as broadly diversified superannuation funds or publicly listed managed or trust arrangements”.

That is a very separate issue to the suggestion that Ministers can take part in the Mighty River share float.

Incidentally I think it is a good idea for Ministers to follow the lead of the PM and put their shareholdings in a blind trust. But a one size fits all rule may be overly prescriptive  You may have a Minister who has say 10,000 shares in one company prior to becoming a Minister and requiring them to set up a Trust for such a minor shareholding could be a bit over the top.

Paul Little writes in the HoS:

Family First got market research outfit Curia to survey attitudes on assaulting children – or “smacking” as they call it – as part of its perpetual campaign to have the law forbidding this overturned.

Whenever someone refers to smacking as assault, it isn’t hard to guess their views on the issue.

Family First appears to believe that not being smacked is the single most important issue facing our children. A “whopping” 77 per cent of those polled, FF claimed, wanted the law changed to bring back the bash.

Obviously, results on a question like this will depend on how it is framed. In this case, the 1000 respondents were asked whether the law should be changed so that “parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law”.

In other words, it was saying, “Do you believe something that is reasonable is reasonable?”

Critiquing of questions is always welcome. I do it myself to other polls, and it is important people understand the exact question asked.

In this case though what Mr Little overlooks is that the use of the term “reasonable” is not invented by Curia. It is the term that was in the law prior to 2007, and is the term used in the amendment that was put up by John Boscawen (and previously Chester Borrows), and is a term still in the law today. It is a term that was at the heart of the two year debate on the law.

“Should the law be changed so that it is legal to hit children when it is not legal to hit adults, or should there be one law for all?”

That would have got a different result. But it wouldn’t have been a very useful question to find out the answer to the question about whether people want the law to allow correctional smacking that uses reasonable force (as the law used to allow). I would also point out that the term reasonable force is still in the Crimes Act (s59) as parents can use reasonable force for:

• preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person
  
• preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour
• performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting

So I think the use of “reasonable” is entirely reasonable considering the current law.

Two other questions in the survey were equally absurd. Seventy-seven per cent said the new law had had no effect on child abuse. All credit to Curia for finding 1000 people who were up to speed with the latest data in that field.

Mr Little seems to be suggesting that people can’t have opinions on an issue, unless they are an expert on the field. I presume he also decries polls that ask people if they think fracking is unsafe and should be banned?

It is absolutely valid to find out if people think a law change has worked. What isn’t valid is to take the results of the poll as meaning the law has not worked. This is about finding out what people think.

The official crime stats should that NZ has less violent crime than in the past. But I don’t think this means it is wrong to ask people whether they think NZ is safer than in the past.

I blogged today on a poll regarding safety of nuclear powered ships by UMR. Does Mr Little think UMR were wrong to ask non-experts on whether they think nuclear powered ships are safe?

For the problem with Question 3 – “Would you still smack your child if you thought it was reasonable … despite the current law?” – see Question 1, above.

Mr Little misses the point of this question. Apart from the fact that the term “reasonable” is used because it is in the former (and current) law, this question is about finding out if people will obey the law, even if they disagree with it. An overwhelming majority say they will ignore the law and do correctional smacking even though it is explicitly illegal. That is a quite extraordinary to have so many people say they will break the law.

Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

The frightening part for Labour leader David Shearer forgetting to declare his $50,000-plus offshore bank account is National’s response: next to nothing. The Prime Minister said simply that Shearer’s memory lapse was “unfortunate”.

Unfortunate? That’s scary.

The usual political playbook is straightforward: 1. Make the account suspicious; 2. Keep the story alive; 3. Ensure a public inquiry; 4. Bust Shearer.

The political play is best run by an up-and-coming backbencher. Ministers must be seen as too busy running the country to be bothered.

The backbencher doesn’t allege any wrongdoing. That requires evidence. The only concern is perception.

The backbencher kicks off by asking why an MP and party leader would ever need an offshore bank account. “The political leaders who have secret offshore accounts aren’t the sort we usually have in New Zealand.”

The story is kept alive by pressing hard through the media with new questions every day. Day Two: “Mr Shearer must come clean with just how much he has in his secret account.” Of course, Shearer will refuse. Good.

Day Three: Allege it’s over a million dollars.

Journalists do the rest. They put the million-dollar figure to Shearer. If he doesn’t deny it, then a million dollars it is. If he denies it’s a million, the journalists won’t let go until he declares how much it’s below a million. The account’s dollar value is secured easily enough.

A new day, a new question. When did he last use the account? Who put the money in? When and why? Why hasn’t he closed the account? On and on it goes.

The public inquiry is achieved by making a Breach of Privilege complaint. It’s impossible for Parliament’s Speaker to refuse. If failing to declare $50,000-plus in a foreign bank account is not a breach then MPs are free to declare Mickey Mouse or whatever on their register of interests.

The resulting Privileges Committee is media gold. Shearer must front to a committee of senior MPs, most of whom are on the Government’s side. The questioning is in public, on camera. Week after week he must explain to incredulous MPs how he forgot about having tens of thousands of dollars in an offshore bank account but somehow remembered every year when he completed his tax return.

The whys and wherefores of his overseas banking would be dragged out of him. The committee would want his banking records. He would have little choice but to supply them.

I have absolutely no doubt that what Rodney describes is what would have happened if it was a National Party Leader who failed to disclose for four years in a row a foreign bank account.

Rodney has a theory about why:

But National has done none of this. That means only one thing. National want Shearer right where he is: leading the Labour Party into the next election.

Heh. I think that is reading too much into it. I think it is rather not wanting to appear to be too sanctimonious.

Damien Grant writes in the HoS:

Chorus has 1.8 million connections and 550 staff. It is privately owned, made $400 million profit in the past seven months and charges $300 for a new phone connection.

Watercare has 1.4 million connections with 645 staff.

It is owned by the Auckland Council and charges $8000 to connect a property to water.

Watercare claims the fee is an infrastructure growth charge.

It isn’t.

It is a tax imposed on developers because it is easier than running an efficient business.

$8,000 seems well over the top I have to say. Does anyone know what it is in other areas?

Ben Gracewood does a dummies guide to the Novopay Technical Review:

1. In some areas system functionality does not adequately support the business processes.

The system, as built, does not do what it was meant to do. This could be because the requirements were poorly documented from the outset (probably), but also because the system is an “off the shelf” system that has been “customised” to meet the requirements.

At some point, a decision would have been made that the “off the shelf” software was an 80% (or 70% or 90%) fit for requirements, and the rest could be built as customisations. Hold that thought and read on.

The moment I read that, I understood where all the subsequent problems probably came from.

A custom built system would, in my opinion, be far more flexible and what is needed. It will be very interesting to see in the full review on what basis the decision was made to go with an off the shelf solution.

2. Usability issues and lack of data input validations contribute to processing errors.

To me, this is the most egregious finding. As I understand it, the entire purpose (or at least a key selling point) of Novopay was to reduce costs by moving from Datacom’s human-intensive workflow to a system whereby schools do all the data entry, and the “system” just needs to calculate pay.

For a system like this to work, a massive amount of time and focus has to go into usability of the front-end system. Later on in the review there are comments about tab keys not working properly, and links between pages of the same input form not working. This is fundamental stuff, and points to Talent2 and ALESCO not giving a flying shit about end-users.

This, while fairly typical of an “enterprise” system build on Oracle Forms, is completely unacceptable if it’s so utterly important that data is entered correctly and quickly. It is an absolute core failure of a system intended to be user-driven.

Yep. It all started to go wrong when schools would not enter in casual staff details and had to fax them off for manual processing.

6. A high degree of customisation in high-impact areas has made on-going development more difficult.

This is another one that really sets my alarm bells ringing. Talent 2 sold Novopay to the government as an ALESCO system with some customisation (see point 1). This is the dirty not-so-secret of any “out of box” enterprise software installation: the base system is next to useless without massive amount of customisation.

More often than not, when you add up the cost of an “out of box” solution PLUS the required “customisation”, a greenfield development fine-tuned to your own requirements becomes a much more comparable solution.

I agree.

Like I said on Twitter: Novopay appears to be the wrong solution sold by people with a poor understanding of the problem, implemented with the typically lax approach of enterprise software development.

In other words, pretty much business as usual for Enterprise IT.

If you think this thing has run its course, you’re kidding yourself. I’ve seen Oracle systems quoted as costing $6m run up $30m of cost before being completely scrapped – as in yes, uninstalled and reverted to the system they were meant to be replacing, completely wiped away.

It will be interesting to see if they deem Novopay fixable.

UMR polled people in January on if they think nuclear powered ships are safe.

The answer should of course be yes, unless you regard every human activity known as unsafe.

A 1996 report found there had been no nuclear events from Western nuclear ships:

However, when it comes to  nuclear events the west has so far had a unique safety record  with no nuclear accidents.

They estimate a serious (but not nuclear) accident involving a nuclear powered ship every 50 years on average.

A more recent report says:

U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over 134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700 reactor-years of safe operation.

So the science is pretty clear on this one. But the poll result was:

• 38% think they are safe
• 48% not safe
• 14% unsure

That shows how ill-informed so many people are. But what I was most interested in was this:

59% of men now believe that nuclear powered vessels are safe, compared with only 18% of women.

That is a massive difference by gender. I can’t recall another issue on which there is such a difference.

If I had to guess, I’d say it is the fear of women that a nuclear accident could interfere with any pregnancies, as in lead to deformed babies. The maternal instinct over-riding risk analysis?

What other reasons do people think might explain the difference? More men study science?

Rodney Hide in NBR writes:

We have 50,000 people on the unemployment benefit and plenty of work that needs doing. The 50,000 represent 1000 years of work that doesn’t get done each and every week. The waste is horrific.

The waste follows from the failure to match the unemployed to the jobs that need doing at a price potential employers are willing to pay.

The matching part of the problem is a perfect job for the internet. And, sure enough, US techno whizz Morgan Warstler has the fix: match the jobs and the unemployed on eBay and pay them through Paypal.

In New Zealand our equivalent, Trade Me, is the perfect set-up linking Kiwis wanting to sell with those wanting to buy. It’s similarly perfect for matching those looking for work with those with jobs that need doing. Trade Me should be used to match jobseekers to jobs.

Under the Warstler scheme the unemployed would register on Trade Me to receive their benefit payment each Friday night.  At present, an unemployed 20-year-old receives a benefit payment of $190.84 gross a week.  Let’s make that $200.

Once an unemployed person is registered on Trade Me anyone wanting work done can bid for them to do it.  It’s the perfect way to match the jobs that need doing to those who can do them. 

So how would it work?

The unit of work on offer is a 40-hour week. And the bids start at $40 a week. That appears impossibly low but the government still pays the $200, so the least anyone gets paid for a week’s work is $240. 

The low starting bid ensures the market clears every week. Local retirement villages and community groups would be actively bidding to help the unemployed into work and to get work done.  Specialist contractors would move in to bid for the unemployed and to offer their work to the marketplace.

It’s hard to see the price staying at $40 a week. Especially for good workers.

The bids increase in $20 increments, with the government getting back $10 of each $20 hike. The worker gets to keep the other $10. For example, if the bid goes to $200 the worker keeps $320 and the government contributes $120 of his or her pay.

So basically the benefit abates.

Trade Me enables feedback possible both ways. Anyone familiar with the site knows how that works.

The good workers and the good employers would soon be identified. There would be no better CV than a string of positive comments on Trade Me. Those workers would get their wages bid up and would soon have a permanent job.

The impossibly lazy would also be identified. They could be followed up by government agents.

Likewise, the bad employers would be weeded out. They would be dealt to just as bad dealers are dealt to on Trade Me. The Warstler scheme provides total transparency.

You could trial this with the long-term unemployed – those who have been on the unemployment benefit for over six months.

The appointment of Dame Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner is surprising, as she has no background in the arena of race relations. I presume that was a deliberate decision of the Government to have someone whom they see as “mainstream” and thinks the country will also.

But the lack of background does mean she will be closely scrutinised in how she does in the role, and if she doesn’t perform well, the Government will be blamed. However there will be considerable differences of opinion on what “performing well” means.

Bryce Edwards has written a summary of opinions on Dame Susan’s appointment. He’s also collected a collection of mainly humourous tweets about it, the best of which I include below:

Danyl Mclauchlan ‏@danylmc 

‘Susan Devoy Race-Relations Commissioner’ makes me wonder how close we came to ‘Richie McCaw, RBNZ Governor’ before someone talked Key down.

Danyl Mclauchlan ‏@danylmc

At least Susan Devoy is more qualified than Anna Guy, who will probably have to settle for PMs Science Advisor

Phil Quin ‏@philquin

The great thing about New Zealand is how anyone — anyone — can grow up to become Race Relations Commissioner one day.

Marcus Cook ‏@MarcusDCook

Revealed; Devoy appointed after “rock, paper, scissors” match with Paul Henry. Won 2/3.

Martyn Bradbury ‏@CitizenBomber

After Devoy, Paul Henry will be appointed to the Broadcasting Standards Authority & Cameron Slater will be the new Surgeon General

Heh.

The Herald reports:

Apple’s New Zealand division made sales of $571 million last year but paid only 0.4 per cent of that in tax.

Labour’s Revenue spokesman David Cunliffe said that’s akin to paying nothing at all, and letting a corporation get off “scott free” is something New Zealand taxpayers shouldn’t have to stomach.

That’s because you pay tax on profits not turnover.

Is Labour saying that they think companies should be taxed on turnovers, not profits? I hope they spell this out well in advance of the election!

Should be about as popular as saying it is a no brainer to tax purchases from overseas websites.

Stuff reports:

Telecom yesterday declined to scotch claims by Labour communications spokeswoman Clare Curran that as many as 1500 of its 7600 staff could lose their jobs as a result of a restructure first announced by Telecom chief executive Simon Moutter last month.

Telecom spokesman Andrew Pirie said that while job reductions would occur across the board at Telecom, many of the cuts would be to middle management functions in administrative areas such as finance and human resources. …

Even Telecom had been through bigger changes before, he said. That included a plan to shed 5200 staff over four years that was announced in 1993 when Telecom employed about 12,500 people. Prior to its demerger from the Post Office it employed 26,000. Businesses such as the railways had also been through more dramatic changes, he said.

A Telecom manager once joked to me that Telecom wasn’t so much a telecommunications company as a law firm that specialised in telecommunications.

This was in recognition of the fact that much of the actual technical aspects are done by contractors such as Alcatel-Lucent and Yahoo.

Telecom for many years made money through its grip on the monopoly copper lines. We were not well served by that regime.

David Cunliffe and Steven Joyce broke up that monopoly, first by operational separation and then structural separation. Chorus, the monopoly element, is now a separate company.

It has been inevitable that the Telecom of the future would be a different beast. it needs to be a nimble, efficient risk taking competitive company as it now fairly competes against Vodafone and 2 Degrees, plus many minnows.

They have been moving towards this. Their flat rate data roaming rates were a bold move that should win them market share. Their XT network provides so much better coverage than Vodafone, that I swapped over. They are in an environment where you have to work hard to both gain and retain customers.

Such a regime serves us consumers well.

It also means that Telecom’s historic over-staffing (have a look at their rival’s staff numbers) will be dramatically pruned. And for the staff affected, and their families, it is traumatic and awful.  Losing a job, even when you are performing well, is gutting. So on an individual level, those affected have my sympathy.

But at a macro level, these changes are not a bad thing. Our country and economy prospers when companies becomes more efficient, and consumers have choice and competition.

An interesting article by John Armstrong on why he thinks National was at 49% in their last poll. A summary of his 10 reasons is:

1. Key’s sky-high rating as most preferred Prime Minister
   
2.  Key’s moderate conservatism
3. Key is unashamedly pragmatic
4. Neutralising of troublesome issues rather than allowing them to linger and fester
5. A majority of voters view National as the better manager of the economy
6. Good at maintaining momentum
7. National is still largely defining what the arguments are about in most policy areas
8. Opposition parties are instead still devoting considerable time and effort to fighting battles they have lost
9. Public getting acclimatised to the rather chaotic nature of minority government
10. Few, if any, issues that are seriously divisive and on which National finds itself stranded on the wrong side of the argument for ideological reasons

I would also add on that the alternative looks chaotic and unconvincing.

In another article, three Herald staffers look at Key’s personal popularity. First Armstrong again:

Why is John Key still riding high in the polls? Put it down to several factors. First, an understanding of and empathy with the New Zealand character and what is acceptable and not acceptable. His moderate conservatism is straight out of Sir Keith Holyoake’s textbook.

Key’s second priceless asset is his finely-honed political instinct in which he has the sense to trust – even when receiving advice to the contrary. Few leaders who have spent six years in the job would have their feet still firmly planted on the ground. He is never aloof. Nor arrogant. He does not talk down to people. He can laugh at himself. …

Key’s affable nature is not a false front to be worn solely for public consumption.

Claire Trevett touches on that last point:

His show of a good-natured, even-tempered, self-deprecating personality is one of his most potent weapons. It makes him seem approachable, and that helps explain why his personal ranking is so high above his party’s popularity. It also blurs the fact that he is wealthier and more powerful than most voters. If his Government is having a hard time, the next time he gives a speech he’ll get in a self-mocking joke about it, a tactic that simultaneously acknowledges the headache it is causing him while getting across the message that it is not as major an issue as is being made out. …

His sense of humour is his most underestimated asset. Voters get bored of leaders – it is one of the most corrosive factors on their popularity. Only tyrants and comedians can slow the process of that boredom. Labour cannot abide it, and that alone shows how powerful Key’s persona is.

While Liam Dann says:

As the Bill Clinton campaign slogan said: it’s the economy, stupid.

People vote with their pockets even when they are complaining about myriad other issues.

And I don’t think voters think the economy will do better with a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government.

NZ Herald quiz here.