Can’t be complacent about corruption

An Argentinean visitor looked out the kitchen window of our crib in Wanaka and commented on the absence of a fence between the lawn and the street.

She asked if we had a  burglar alarm, camera or other security measures.

I said no and that sort of thing would be rare in most parts of New Zealand.

It isn’t like that in Argentina where most homes have alarms, bars on their doors and windows and most people use deadlocks even when they’re home.

The next day we were with an Argentinean who lives here and she told us of hosting two of her countrymen when one realised he didn’t have his money belt.

It contained not just money but credit cards and his and his brother’s passports.

One of their friends remembered he’d taken it off in a bar the night before. The host rang the bar and was told the manager had left a note saying she’d found a money belt the previous night and would take it to the police.

The tourists couldn’t believe that someone would be so honest and that the police could be trusted with the money belt and its contents too.

I am very pleased that we live in a country where most people are honest and are institutions are too but Transparency International reminds us that we shouldn’t be complacent about corruption.

The New Zealand public sector has long enjoyed a reputation as one of the least corrupt in the world. On the day of its 100th Anniversary, Transparency International (New Zealand) warns that there is no room for complacency in the quest towards higher standards of governance. Later this year, Transparency International NZ (TINZ) will publish its Integrity Plus National Integrity System report, which looks at twelve key institutional pillars covering Parliament, political parties, the executive, the judiciary, the public sector including local government, key watch-dog institutions, the media, law enforcement agencies, community and voluntary organisations and business.

“The fact that many government agencies are contributing funding to support the study indicates that the public sector also recognizes the importance of maintaining a high integrity society, and is not complacent about the risks to integrity in today’s more globalised world” says Suzanne Snively.

“National Integrity System studies have been carried out for the last 10 years or so, in countries all around the world” says Suzanne Snively, co-director of the research project for TINZ. “We conducted a study in New Zealand back in 2003 and, as with that study, we will again be going beyond a narrow focus on corruption to assess New Zealand against best practice standards of transparency and accountability, taking account of our unique constitutional and cultural features. Emergent findings are beginning to be identified. For example, the Office of the Controller and Auditor General and the Ombudsman are particularly strong in terms of transparency and accountability. TINZ welcomes the just announced increased level of resourcing of the Office of the Ombudsman”.

There have been significant developments in other areas of public life since the 2003 report as well, such as the creation of the Independent Police Conduct Authority in 2007, as well as in a number of areas where the 2003 Report recommended changes. These include the introduction of the State Services Commission survey of public servants, the strengthening of the governance framework of Crown Entities, the establishment of the Judicial Conduct Commission, the introduction of reporting of tax expenditures, and, updated codes of conduct for Ministers and Crown Entities in 2008. But the picture is not all positive with a number of concerns raised in the 2003 report remaining unaddressed, while new areas of risk to integrity have emerged.

“In this time of budgetary restraint” argues Suzanne “as the public sector faces reductions in funding, transparency and public engagement it is more important than ever to ensure that the best choices are made about effective ways to economise and innovate so that they impact in a way that improves service delivery”.

To test integrity systems, the NIS assessment includes some in-depth research into private sector organisations to assess the strength of their business ethics and processes. To compare them with the public sector, this means drilling down into specific areas such as exporting processes and financial transactions.

TINZ will be holding a number of events this year to engage with New Zealanders throughout the country to discuss its findings about public, private and community sector integrity systems. “All members of the public are welcome to go onto our website now and comment,” says Suzanne. “New Zealand’s reputation for integrity and anti-corruption remains high in the international arena, but that does not mean that it is perfect and it does not mean that it can’t be improved. Integrity in public life increases trust, which is essential to maintaining a healthy and participatory democratic country”.

We can’t expect our institutions and government to be more honest and less corrupt than society.

That depends on all of us maintaining standards and there is no room for complacency there, even in little things.

When my daughter and I were leaving the supermarket on Saturday we noticed a doll on a counter which looked like one our guest’s young daughter had been given.

When we got back to the house we asked if she’d lost it and were told she had.

I phoned the supermarket and said the doll on their counter belonged to our guests and we’d pick it up.

Our guest was amazed and said that if she’d lost a toy at home she’d never expect to get it back.

We didn’t get back to the supermarket that day and when I went on Sunday the supervisor couldn’t find the doll. She said she’d ask the staff who’d been on the day before and told me to call back.

I went back yesterday to be told no-one knew what had happened to the doll.

Perhaps someone else claimed the doll or maybe when we didn’t come back on Saturday someone thought we weren’t going to.

I wouldn’t call this corruption  but I’m sorry that the impression of honesty our guests had isn’t quite as glossy as they thought and we hoped.

 

What’s appropriate, where’s the empathy?

If you’ve been at a 21st or wedding recently you might have been subjected to speeches with content you’d prefer not to have heard and that many would regard as inappropriate for the occasion and audience.

After one such speech, discussion on it ended with the observation – if people don’t know what’s appropriate at social occasions,  how do they behave at work?

The answer for 2Day FM, the radio station which recorded, mulled upon and then broadcast the phone conversation with a nurse about the Duchess of Cambridge’s health, is that they don’t know what’s appropriate there either.

The DJs who made the call couldn’t possibly have anticipated the nurse who first answered the phone would later commit suicide.

Nor could any of those who listened to it and okayed the broadcast.

However, during the vetting process someone should have questioned whether it was appropriate to phone a hospital to ask after the health of a patient, regardless of who she was, then broadcast the conversation with the nurse who gave the information.

Had that question been asked, the answer should have been no.

There’s nothing new about prank calls and they can be funny.

What’s funny is very much a matter of opinion, so too is what’s appropriate.

At Sciblogs, Michael Edmonds has some rules to judge  if a prank is acceptable:

1) The prank must not do any damage, physical or otherwise. If it creates a mess you get to clean it up

2) The person being “pranked” should find it funny (i.e. it must be someone you know and can anticipate a humorous reaction from)

3) The prank must not humiliate the person in any way

4) You must be okay with being pranked in return. If you can’t handle it, you shouldn’t dish it out.

Anyone with a reasonable degree of empathy would have realised that the call to the hospital wouldn’t have passed the first three tests.

The question to be asked is not just what’s appropriate, but also where’s the empathy?

Denmark, Finland and New Zealand 1 = least corrupt

Denmark, Finland and New Zealand tied in first place in Transparency  International’s Global Corruption Perceptions Index.

While welcoming this recognition for New Zealand, the local chapter of Transparency International is promising that its newly launched National Integrity System assessment will provide a much more nuanced and detailed report on the country’s vulnerability to corruption.

“Our ambitious National Integrity System Assessment will give the most detailed answer yet to the question, ‘What factors cause New Zealand to rank consistently at the top?’” Says Suzanne Snively Chair of TINZ and NIS Steering Group Co-Chair.

Snively continues, “The NIS assessment is more ambitious and comprehensive than any previously conducted. The strong support we are receiving through funding agencies and participants indicates a commitment on the part of New Zealanders to remain a high trust society. New Zealanders are recognizing that not only is this ranking a source of pride, it represents a significant competitive advantage and economic benefits for New Zealand business.”

Lack of corruption is something most of us take for granted.

It’s usually not until we travel to other countries where the institutions and people can’t be trusted as they can be here that we understand and appreciate the value of integrity.

We met the head of an international bank a few month ago and were discussing which countries it operates in.

We asked if it had plans to do business in a couple of countries in South America.

His answer was swift – no, you couldn’t be sure you’d get your money back.

New Zealand’s high trust society is both a national treasure and an economic asset. Forbes magazine ranks New Zealand first on its most recent list of the Best Countries for Business thanks to a transparent and stable business climate. According to Phil O’Reilly Chief Executive of Business New Zealand “New Zealand’s high trust public sector is it’s greatest competitive advantage.”

We need inward investment and we’re far more likely to get it than other countries where transparency, stability and trust are less common.

Quote of the day

“Modern life is so complicated that no amount of terms and conditions can possibly do what they claim to. Consequently, the world stumbles along as it always has – relying on trust and human nature, not Clause 39b, to get things done.

If someone wants to break a contract they will do so. No matter how thoroughly you try to shield yourself with the armour of small print, what matters is whether the parties involved can be relied on. Most people can be. Others cannot. What is written on a page makes little difference, as Bridgecorp investors know to their cost.” Paul Little

Quote of the day

If Tony Blair, a former Prime Minister, makes untold millions trading deals with shady despots in the Third World, is it really any surprise that many people – the electoral peasantry of our political masters – feel that to be honest in these circumstances is to be naive, a fool, a mug.

They are wrong, actually: it is important to be honest for the sake of one’s self-respect, but not everyone values their self-respect. . .

. . . Dishonesty is contagious. And the example our business, political and intellectual leaders give us is, to an unprecedented degree in recent memory, bad, corrupt and corrupting. . . Theodore Dalrymple in Cheats, spivs and small-time crooks: Britain is getting less honest, and it starts at the top

Quote of the day

. . .  It is within the state-sustained underclass that the greatest danger to children appears to exist. And even if it is doesn’t, even if it is merely part of a larger problem, it is the part we can influence.

Forget colour. Consider circumstance. Multiple babies, different fathers, transient partners, a lifestyle entirely dependent on benefits paid by state agencies so haunted by the memory of the soup kitchens that they refuse to make anybody “pray” for anything. So they write the cheque and leave the bridge. They don’t stay on board. They don’t come to the rescue. They don’t even know there’s been an accident.

This is not Daniel Moynihan’s infamous “benign neglect”. It is malign neglect, a breech of the duty of care. It is the state failing the most vulnerable, the most helpless, the most dependant of its citizens. If money is paid for the nurture of children, then those who pay it must do everything in their power to ensure those children are nurtured. If they don’t, they are complicit.

There’s nothing wrong with asking people to perform certain tasks in exchange for payment they have freely sought. That’s how the world works. . .  Jim Hopkins

Quote of the day

. . . “We mustn’t judge” has become the national mantra.

We actually feel righteous about giving up on any belief in right and wrong, so we can simply feel indulgent about a public slow death from addiction and malnutrition, just as we draw back complacently from condemning a vile crime.

We are, quite simply, morally lazy. It’s too much effort to set our minds to the task of upholding what’s good, and condemning what’s not; we’ve fallen into the trap of believing that an explanation for abhorrent acts is in itself an absolution. . . Rosemary Mcleod

Twelve little lies plus one

National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce has a little list.

It has 12 lies Phil Goff has told during the campaign:

• 12.      Labour left the economy in good shape. WRONG - The economy had been in recession all year in 2008, floating mortgage rates were at 10.9 per cent, government spending was up 50 per cent in five years, and Treasury      was forecasting debt to rise out of control forever.

• 11.      National has cut hundreds of millions from early childhood  education.  WRONG – ECE funding has risen 40 per cent over the past three years.

• 10.      ‘We will get back into surplus the same time as National.’  WRONG –      Under any straightforward scrutiny of Labour’s revenue and expenditure  numbers over the next four years.

• 9.      ‘We will only borrow $2.6 billion more than National over the next three  years.’  WRONG – Latest calculation is $15.6 billion extra over four  years (excluding the Greens).

• 8.      ‘Labour would forgo power company dividends and reduce prices.’       WRONG – Labour now says it will keep dividend income in government  accounts.

• 7.      ‘National will sell Kiwibank’ – WRONG

• 6.      ‘Borrowing money to buy assets in the Super Fund is not borrowing.’       YEAH RIGHT

• 5.      Fruit and vegetable prices ‘continue to spiral upward’.  WRONG –      currently same price as November 2008.

• 4.      Prices have risen four times faster than wages in past three years.      WRONG – After tax wages up 18 per cent in last three years, prices up 8      per cent.

• 3. Mixed ownership means forgoing dividends of $6-700 million per year.  WRONG      – Actually, around $220 million per year, and save that amount at least in reduced interest.

• 2. The  income gap withAustralia has widened.  WRONG – After tax incomes here have risen faster thanAustralia over the past three years.

• 1. Police recruitment being cancelled for all of next year.  WRONG – One intake only postponed      two months because of increased staff retention.

“Labour said they would campaign on the issues, but in fact they’ve gone back to the old Labour way of making things up, and hoping if they make a false allegation often enough people would start to believe it.”

Lindsay Mitchell has another lie: “New Zealand has the highest youth unemployment rate in the developed world.” . . . .

The rate for 15-24 year-olds is currently 17.3%

This is lower than the US, the UK, France, Finland, Sweden, Chile, the Czech Republic, Italy, Belgium and a few others.

Kiwiblog has a link to Sean Plunket’s interview with Goff  this morning in which the latter refuses to admit he’s wrong about police recruitment.

And Whaleoil has the tweet of the day:

Did Phil Goff really not know his police numbers claims were a sack of excrement? Or was it a lie to scare people into voting Labour?

about 5 hours ago via HootSuiteReplyRetweetFavorite

@seanplunketzb

SeanPlunketMornings

An accident?

Quote of the day:

Anyone gullible enough to swallow the story the taping of the Key-Banks tea party last week was inadvertent, as the Herald on Sunday claimed? The reality is Sunday tabloids don’t cover events other media attend during the week, unless they can get an exclusive. And the only way to get an exclusive of the tea party was by way of subterfuge. But you have to admire the HoS brazen effrontery in claiming it had acted ethically. And how about those politicians who in one breath said it would be illegal to tape a private conversation, and, in the next, said John Key was panicking in filing a complaint with the police? Trans Tasman. 

Whether or not people are swallowing the story, the latest One News Colmar Brunton poll shows the issue hasn’t done much damage to National  and has done nothing to help Labour.

It also shows that the vandalism of National’s signs by a now-former member of the Green Party hasn’t cost it any support.

The poll had National dropping a point to 53%, Labour down to a 10-year low of 26%, the Green Party up to 13% and, thankfully, New Zealand First on only 2.2%.

If you can’t trust them with the rules you can’t trust them to rule

What can you say about a party that breaks the rules it helped to enact, makes a half-hearted apology, says it won’t do it again then does it again while under investigation by the police?

Whaleoil has a flyer that was delivered in West Auckland yesterday.

It has the parliamentary crest which means you and I paid for it. That is stretching the rules because it is for political not parliamentary purposes.

It has no authorisation statement. That is breaking the rules.

What does it say about Labour?

They’re broke and so desperate they’ll stretch the rules around parliamentary funding and they’ll break the law - again – even while under investigation for the same offence.

If you can’t trust a party to work within the rules you can’t trust them to rule.

Drs shouldn’t need court approval to do no harm

“How aggressive do you want us to be in treating Tom?” the doctor asked.

He was referring to our baby who had a degenerative brains disorder, had stopped breathing, been revived and taken to hospital.

We said that if he was fighting for himself he should be helped but if it came down to using technology to prolong the inevitable he should be left alone.

A few hours later another doctor asked the same question and I gave the same answer. Tom died a few minutes later, in my arms.

Nearly seven years later Tom’s brother Dan stopped breathing. The registrar treating him asked the nurse to get the crash team but I said “no”.

The paediatrician in charge of Dan’s care had discussed this situation with us when he was only a few weeks old and it was obvious he had the same condition which had killed Tom. The consultant’s advice was that if something life threatening happened, Dan shouldn’t be treated.

I explained this to the registrar who asked me if I was sure. I said “yes,” and he said, “I think that’s the right decision.”

That was 17 years ago tomorrow and I thought that this sort of  situatio, while not common-place, wouldn’t be unusual. Life is fatal and not treating someone who is terminally ill can sometimes be the best way of doing no harm.

I thought that was accepted practice.  But just a couple of weeks ago a special court was convened at night to determine whether a health board’s decision not to do surgery on a terminally ill boy would amount to homicide.

A judge ruled it did not, finding it was in accordance with “good medical practice” not to do the life-prolonging operation. The seven-year-old boy died the next day.

This sort of decision shouldn’t be taken lightly but I don’t understand why there was a need to take it to court. As Dr Richard McGrarth says at Not PC:

 I find it disturbing that a court should even be considering whether they can force a surgeon to operate on anyone, or charge him with homicide if he declines to operate and the patient then dies of natural causes.

I have no doubts that not treating my sons was the right thing to do.

If I was in a similar position with a similar prognosis I’d make the same decision again and I’d be very upset if I had to go to court to protect the doctors I was asking to withhold treatment.

Doctors shouldn’t need a judge’s approval to do nothing when that is the best way to do no harm.

Pak and Steal

Self-service check-outs at supermarkets save time for customers and wages for the business but they also provide opportunities for the dishonest.

Expensive fruit and vegetables are keyed in as cheaper ones; the inexpensive bottle of wine is scanned, the dearer one put in the bag and the cheaper one scanned again.

These are just a couple of the tricks a supermarket owner told me his staff had caught customers trying.

One or two items is bad enough. Some opportunistic shoppers took advantage of an electronic glitch which opened a Hamilton Pak and Save supermarket with no staff and turned it into Pak and Steal:

“I actually believe a lot of these people just came in today innocently to shop,” says security guard Basil Way.

He’s been reviewing the footage of the confused shoppers.

“People have the opportunity to be honest, or be dishonest. Or just run for the hills,” he says.

Management says it’s highly embarrassed by what’s happened and says thanks to a quick police response – they didn’t lose too much.

The management says if any of the thieves come in and pay for what they took, the money will be donated to the Red Cross for Christchurch.

And it warns that it already knows who some of them are, because they’re regular customers.

What saddened me more was that some people who were asked what they’d have done had they found the shop unstaffed  appeared to find nothing wrong in the thefts and said they’d have taken the groceries too.

That makes them not only dishonest but unashamed to admit it on national television.

Is it too much to hope they are a tiny minority or is honesty no longer the norm?

Doing the right thing needed to change culture

From the time I did lifesaving at high school I worried that I’d be called on to use what I’d learned but panic and not be able to do it.

The only time I’ve had to do CPR was the night our son stopped breathing. Those long ago lifesaving lessons had been reinforced by more recent ones before we’d left hospital with Tom and I automatically did what I’d been taught to do.

There weren’t a lot of options that night, but sometimes the situation isn’t so clear-cut. What if someone needed help and I didn’t recognise it, if I didn’t realise how serious the situation and made the wrong decision to not seek medical aid?

It appears this is what happened the night James Webster died.

When I saw his parents on television at the time I was amazed at how measured they were in their response, not casting blame on the people who’d been with their son, not asking what happened, how it had been allowed to happen and why no-one did anything to help him.

They still aren’t casting blame and they’re not saying James wasn’t at fault,  but they are asking questions and they’re not getting many answers.

Auckland mayor John Banks’ son was at the party and:

Banks is one of the few parents associated with that fatal night, to front up to the Websters as they desperately seek to find out exactly how their son died.

It is up to the coroner to determine what happened that night but – if the story as reported is accurate – others at the party could help the Websters put together the pieces of the puzzle over their son’s death much sooner.

One of the things which can help people come to terms with the death of someone they love, is knowing that some good can come from it and that lessons have been learned which could prevent a similar tragedy.

After meeting the Webster family, Banks grounded his son and sent him on a first aid course.

“He now knows and can recognise that when someone’s in trouble with alcohol he calls 111 – had it happened on that night James Webster would still be alive.

“I say as a father – there but for the grace of God go I.”

. . . Reporter Mark Crysell asked Banks what he said to Alex after James’ death. Banks, whose own mother drank herself to death, had an emotional response.

“Well I said to Alex this is very sad … for our families and you’re going to have to stay home and not go out at night until you’ve undertaken a comprehensive first aid course so that you understand the dangers of alcohol.”

But what of the other people there – the young people and the adults who were supervising them – who haven’t fronted up to the Websters?

Have they learned from the experience and changed?

Have all of them learned that unconsciousness is a sign of something badly wrong and it’s better to call for an ambulance for a false alarm than delay over something serious?

Has none of them drunk to excess, or encouraged someone else to do so, since James’ death?

And why haven’t they all done what they can to help the Websters?

Until they do, James’ parents won’t be able to piece together what happened. Nor will they have the comfort of knowing that those who were there have learned enough to ensure they and the people they’re with drink sensibly and safely in future.

It is dangerous to make judgements on information gained from a television story, but if this one was fair, the other people at the party should do the right thing, meet the Websters and help them understand the steps which led to their son’s death.

The government announced proposals last week to change liquor laws. The one proposal which might help prevent a repeat of this tragedy is the one which will make it illegal to supply alcohol to anyone under 18 without parental approval.

But even that law will only be effective if there is a culture change as well, one that means drunkenness isn’t acceptable and drinking to excess isn’t funny, it’s stupid and it’s dangerous.

The people who were at the party could be part of the culture change which is needed to prevent a similar tragedy happening to someone else. They could start by talking about it to the Websters.

Any  of us might not recognise how seriously ill someone was and make the wrong decision about calling for help. But I’d like to think that if I did and someone died as a result, I’d have the courage to face the family and help them understand what happened.

UPDATE: Apropos of this Roarprawn posts on teenage hell.

Question for accountants useful for politicians

An accountant had a business failure as a result of which he lost almost everything.

Many of his former clients wondered how they could trust him to do his best with their financial affairs when he’d failed so spectacularly with his own.

That’s not a bad question to ask of politicians too.

I’d have thought someone’s attitude to the public purse might also be an important consideration if they were seeking election as  mayor.

If polls on mayoral elections in Auckland and Christchurch are to be believed, the majority of voters aren’t particularly worried about that.

If they were Jim Anderton’s big $100,000 trip to Europe   and spa treatments charged to his ministerial credit card  – against the rules, though later repaid  – and Len Brown’s misuse of his mayoral credit card would put them well behind but recent polls put both are in front.

I know little about local body affairs in either city. But I am sorry that character – about which attitude to spending public money on private purcahses  says much – doesn’t seem to count.

It’s about character

The glovebox in the stock agent’s car was full of petrol vouchers.

The friend who saw them there asked why so many. The agent without a blush said, he’d bought them on the company petrol card.

Misuse of cards isn’t confined to ministers and Michelle Boag has just made a very good point on Q&A – it comes down to character.

Some people are mean and will claim every cent to which they are entitled and more, others won’t claim anything, most will err on the side of caution when making legitimate claims.

Some people have left comments wondering about Helen Clark and Heather Simpson. Any regular reader will know that I am not a fan of either of them but I will be very surprised if there is anything untoward on their cards. Labour under Clark was very good at spending taxpayers’ money on policies to help other people who may or may not have needed it, but she was not personally extravagant.

The only thing that’s been commented on her card so far is a $19 pair of gumboots. That’s very cheap, the last pair I bought cost around $100.

People who misused their cards deserve the opprobrium being heaped on them but it wasn’t every minister who did and some of the expenses being queried are legitimate.

If people are running the country and travelling the world as part of their duties we can’t expect them to stay in backpackers and eat at street stalls.

I might also accept them putting everything on the minsiterial card and including a cheque for personal expenses when they sent receipts.

But given some can’t be trusted it would be better to leave them to pay on their own cards then claim back legitimate expenses.

Red blood no excuse

When Sean Plunket asked  Shane Jones if he’d been watching pornographic movies and charging it to the taxpayer he said he couldn’t remember.

That sounded like an admission of guilt to me and belatedly he’s come clean:

I’m a red blooded adult, it shouldn’t have happened, it has happened, it doesn’t make me feel particularly worthy but I’m not going to hide from it.”

Since when has being red blooded been an excuse to watch pornographic movies and charge it to the taxpayer?

The continuing unveiling of  misuse of credit cards by ministers past and present reflects poorly on them all, but using the card  for porn paints a particularly nasty picture.

Super powers

What super powers do we need for the modern world? Not the comic book ones, but ones which make us better people.

Zen Tiger at NZ Conservative muses on this and has come up with a list of five:

1. Comprehend Languages.
2. Know names.
3. Teleport.
4. Healing Touch.
5. Iron Will.

I’ve deliberately left out Zen’s explanations and suggestions of alternate powers because the post deserves to be read in full.

He’s aiming for a top 10. I’ve added:

6. the power to truly forgive and fully forget slights

7. the power to foresee unforeseen consequences.

Ethics vs politics

If a public hospital has done all the work it’s funded for and has no money to do any more procedures but does have the staff and equipment, should it be able to do so with private money?

More to the point, is it ethical to refuse treatment which could be provided if someone pays just because not everyone else can?

Providing private paying patients aren’t taking precedence over those whose procedures are publicly funded when the funds are available, I don’t see any problem with public hospitals providing privately funded services.

But I do think there’s an ethical issue if the hospitals aren’t able to provide services when the only issue is where the money is coming from.

Oncologist Dr Chris Jackson explains the thinking behind private funding for some procedures in public hospitals in the ODT.

Allowing public hospital cancer patients to have the option of paying for drugs not available through the public system would not mean the beginning of the end of the public health system . . .

. . . The consultation document states it is important for the hospital’s priority to be providing publicly funded services and that provision of extra treatments should not affect the care of patients receiving the publicly funded treatment. . .

Not everyone supports the idea but it sounds to me that those who oppose it don’t understand that paying patients wouldn’t be shoving others aside and they’re letting politics get in the way of ethics.

Macdoctor supports the concept and the panel discussed the issue with Jim Mora  and Dr Jackson (at about 15:30).

P.S. A personal example of when the private-public stand-off gets silly. Our baby son needed an MRI scan in 1989 when New Zealand’s only scanner was in a private hopsital in Auckland. Rather than sending us there, we were flown to Sydney.

Should our greatest be good?

Are honesty and integrity important?

Does the type of person someone is count at least as much as what s/he does?  Should s/he be be judged not only on what s/he does but the way s/he does it? Do not just  deeds but character matter?

Should our greatest people also be good?

If they are getting our highest honour they should and that is why I am disappointed that Helen Clark has been made a Member of the Order of New Zealand.

I wouldn’t have minded if she’d been made a Dame, although her aversion to titular honours would have precluded that.

My disappointment isn’t because of politics. I don’t agree with a lot of what she did but redistribution and encouraging dependency on the state are consistent with her socialist views.

It’s what some of her actions say about her character that’s the problem.

She didn’t just forge one painting. She admitted to signing “about half a dozen” works of art which she hadn’t produced “over 20 years” and then couldn’t understand what was wrong with that.

She didn’t support the police who drove too fast to get her from Waimate to Christchurch.

She used taxpayers’ money illegally to pay for Labour’s campaigns, changed the law to make that spending legal and passed an Act in an attempt to allow that spending to continue while restricting what other individuals and groups could spend.

She backed Phillip Field in the face of strong evidence against him and did her best to thwart the inquiry into his actions.

She continued to back Winston Peters as a minister long after he showed he could not be trusted.

The Order of New Zealand is restricted to just 20 living New Zealanders.

If one of our 20 greatest isn’t also good it reflects very badly on the rest of us.

One at a time

When it comes to sexual relationships, one at a time has always struck me as a good idea.

The reaction to Tiger Woods’  tales or straying suggests that my view may be regarded as unusual.

Some reckon whatever happened should be between him and his wife – and possibly his children – oh and the several other women with whom he’s had liaisons.

I have some sympathy with that. If it’s not about golf  or his public life, it’s not our business and prolonged publicity will only make it harder for his wife and children.

But there’s a difference between leaving his private life private and condoning what he did.

Of all the reactions to the stories of Woods’ infidelity, what surprises me most is the attitude that there’s nothing wrong with it, summed up by Peter Williams in his Herald column:

He shouldn’t be ashamed. He’s far from the first. And there will be plenty more to follow.

He isn’t the first and won’t be the last, but why shouldn’t he be ashamed?

Work which takes partners away from each other can’t be easy – just look at how many MPs’ marriages fail – and there must be plenty of temptation for a fit, famous and wealthy man.

But are men – and women, because infidelity isn’t confined to blokes – really incapable of maintaining loving monogamous relationships even when they’re apart?