Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
the Coat of Arms
So? It has the flag. It does not suddenly cease to be valid because it no longer displays the current flag. The crown that tops it was worn by Liz at her coronation (included in a re-design in 1956), so will we re-design again when Chuck takes over and presumably wears a different, more masculine crown?
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Bart Janssen,
You don’t think all our government departments will go through those changes as a result of the flag change?
Show me evidence of the use of the flag as a logo in government, Bart. Please, show me. I want to see the error of my understanding.
I have seen multitudes of individual departmental logos, and government offices certainly reflect the departmental logos, but I've seen no use of the flag as a logo and nobody has shown me the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary. So if you're going to harp on about massive unstated costs, now's the time to show your working. Because my working, based on research and evidence, is that there'll be a bunch of fairly-cheap flags that need to be replaced and a tiny handful of government-issue documents that are on a replacement cycle and can be re-branded over the ordinary lifetime of that cycle.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Steve Barnes,
None of the other 300 flags around the country are the wrong colour, the spokeswoman said.
but still $4000 each?
No. Two specific flags were $4k each, made very large and very tough to fly from the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
One can buy 90cm-by-180cm outdoor-grade NZ flags for $49.95 inc GST; 90x180 seems to be the "standard" size for pole-flown flags.
The priciest NZ flag I could find online, at $505.88 inc GST (1.35x2.7m) would still only run the taxpayer $5m (inc GST) if we had to replace 10k of them, which sounds both ludicrous and excessive. Keep in mind, too, that these are retail prices. One would expect the government to get one hell of a bulk discount at any size.That also indicates how far removed from the norm the AHB flags are in terms of price, as well as, to my thinking, dismissing the "It's going to cost squillions to replace all those flags" attempt at an argument.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Brent Jackson,
which obviously has already been paid.
From the initial budget for the process, one would imagine. Like all the "demo" flags that have been sent around the place.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Bart Janssen,
guesstimates for the NZ flag change are $60 million and up, that’s not the cost of the referendum that’s the cost of changing letterheads, letterheads, passports etc
Those guesstimates keep on coming up, and they never have any evidence attached. Yes, actual flags will have to be replaced. Uniformed services with ensigns may elect to have those redesigned and replaced, but that’s not mandatory as an ensign stands alone.
For the rest, all the letterhead and documents and such, I’m calling BS. The flag is not a logo, and does not get used as such in government; that’s what those expensive, changed-every-few-years departmental logos are for.
Yeah, the flag on the driver’s licence will no longer be correct, but the replacement of issued ones can be handled as part of the ordinary 10-year process and the cost to fix the card design will be negligible. And the velcro patches on military combat clothing will need to be replaced, but the cost of that will be sod-all too.If someone wants to show me evidence of widespread use of the flag on government paperwork other than for illustrative purposes, I really am keen to see it. Because for now all the hysteria and wailing about the downstream costs looks hugely over-blown. Actual flags are not overly expensive ($4k for the massive, heavy-duty one for the Auckland Harbour Bridge indicates the very, very top-end cost for a one-off), and those are the only things that appear to need immediate replacement.
ETA: The flag isn’t on our passports, either.
-
Hard News: The CRL and the nature of change, in reply to Sacha,
However it’s still not an actual cost-recovery basis
Any evidence for that statement?
I thought it was apparent from that page you linked: “Adjustments are made for age, ethnicity and also for the amount of specialist work provided to people outside the area.” That does not say “based on cost of specialist work provided to people outside the area.”
Also, found the article I was thinking of, here. The money quote, as it were: “ADHB receives about $2 billion a year to provide services to Auckland but also has to use its funding to develop and maintain services provided to patients across the country.”
The whole piece reads like ADHB is getting short-changed because it’s got a large and growing population to service but also has to provide services at the national level that aren’t being funded adequately.
ETA: Stuff’s article on it says “Auckland DHB’s region is experiencing rapid population growth and about 50 per cent of its patients are referred from other DHBs”, but ADHB isn’t getting 50% of its funding for non-resident services. And since non-resident services will be more expensive and specialised, the gap is even more significant.
-
Hard News: The CRL and the nature of change, in reply to Sacha,
Not true, sorry. Far too big a cost to wear. Check this page on ADHB’s retro website.
Interesting. However it's still not an actual cost-recovery basis, which is probably what was being got at by the ADHB person; funding for nationally-provided specialist services is insufficient, so money has to bleed through from the DHB funding.
-
Hard News: The CRL and the nature of change, in reply to Sacha,
Much like Auckland DHB, which provides tertiary services to the whole country but only gets funding based on the population of its board area.
Pretty sure they also get funding after the fact from the person’s local DHB. Still expensive to maintain clinical quality and suchlike for the only national service for many conditions. We are a small country.
Read/heard something from a senior clinician at ADHB that implied the capitation funding model means Auckland is having to wear the costs for the services it provides for DHBs nationwide. And even if there is some kind of "payment" going on, it probably doesn't reflect actual costs.
-
Hard News: The CRL and the nature of change, in reply to Paul Campbell,
we have to fundraise to pay for some of them
That's a common refrain. Starship had to do fund-raising in order to add operating theatres and improve facilities for patient privacy. Health funding across the country is in pretty dire straits, courtesy of the current regime's policies.
-
Hard News: The CRL and the nature of change, in reply to Paul Campbell,
take the local hospital board here in Dunedin, it essentially provides service to the bottom 2/5s of the South Island – but it’s reimbursed at the same per-capita rate as elsewhere
Much like Auckland DHB, which provides tertiary services to the whole country but only gets funding based on the population of its board area. So Starship, as an example, is funded for Auckland's population but is the only dedicated paediatric facility in the entire country. Likewise transplants of anything except kidneys, which only happen in Auckland. And if a government decided to fix that anomaly, we'd get more whinging from outside Auckland about how Auckland was getting all the money; it would also sort out the issue you raise vis Dunedin, but I doubt there'd be any satisfaction outside Auckland if Auckland was also getting more money.