Stuff reports:

Small businesses are more likely to hire disadvantaged job hunters since a 90-day trial period was introduced in 2011, research shows.

Recall Labour and Greens vow to abolish these, which would make us (off memory) the only country in the OECD without them.

A national survey of employers found that 72 per cent of those which used trial periods had not dismissed an employee during that time, while 27 per cent of employers had dismissed at least one worker during the trial period.

The report said smaller employers were most satisfied with the 90-day trial because they faced greater risks and costs when recruiting.

Larger employers benefited less, mainly because they had more robust recruitment processes and greater resources to manage risk, it said.

Under the 90-day trial, about one third of employers said they hired staff they would not have otherwise taken on.

The costs to an employer of a wrong staff hire can be quite massive, and job interviews are no substitute for seeing how someone actually performs.

Changes to the Holidays Act had partially met objectives and had minimal impact on firms’ costs, the report said.

Employers and unions said the ability to allow cashing up to occur and to transfer public holidays was sensible.

Didn’t the unions oppose the option of cashing up the 4th week of leave? Could never work out why – it gives employees more flexibility and choice.

Changes to union access and communication during collective bargaining had little impact on employers and unions and did not increase the number of problems reported.

Yet they claimed it would. Shows the recent changes have been minor, yet useful.

Stats NZ had the latest manufacturing data yesterday.

Seasonally adjusted manufacturing value for the 1st quarter of 2014 was $25.3 billion. A year ago in the same quarter it was $22.8 billion. That’s an 11% increase in the last year.

This of course is what Labour, Mana, Greens and NZ First call a manufacturing crisis.

This morning Fairfax and the Taxpayers Union have launched the Ratepayers Report. Union staff have spent months collating the data from 67 city and district councils, with Fairfax staff checking the data, writing stories on it, and producing the online league tables.

You can see in ranked order the 67 councils stats for:

• Average rates bill (Western Bay of Plenty $3,274 to Mackenzie $1,101)
• Staaf numbers (Auckland 5,956 to Kaikoura 22)
• Staff earning over $100,000 (Auckland 811 to four Councils on 2)
• CEO salary (Auckland $620,000 to Waimate $166,000)
• Mayoral salary (Auckland $247,229 to Kaikoura $51,050)
• Council Revenue/ratepayer (Wellington $5,904 to Opotiki $2,197)
• Group Revenue/ratepayer (Chch $10,368 to Opotiki $2,197)
• Debt/ratepayer (Auckland $15,858, Dunedin $15,093 to Central Otago $327)

Stuff has published a number of stories, based on the report.

• Labour, National, Greens on local government.
• Balancing the books
• Highest rates
• Super salaries
• Hutt Valley top value
• Christchurch debt

One can use the data to create your own league tables. For example I’m interested in the ratio of the CEO’s salary to the Mayor’s salary. The highest is Westland where the CEO gets paid 4.9 times as much as the Mayor and the lowest is in Christchurch where they get 1.7 times as much only.

One can also calculate what proportion of staff earn over $100,000. The three highest are Chathams (2/9), Westland (6/37) and Christchurch (302/1936). In Christchurch one in 6.3 staff are paid over $100,000, in Wellington one in 6.8 and in Auckland one in 7.3. At the other end only one in 25 staff at Napier City Council get over $100,000.

Special mention to Larry Mitchell, whose work in this area was the inspiration for the Ratepayers Report.

It is hoped that the Ratepayers Report will be an annual publication so people can see changes in their local councils over time, and use the data at election time to praise or criticise Mayors, councillors and candidates. Ultimately the aim is more informed ratepayers, where they can see key financial info at a glance.

Chris Trotter writes:

Like the Castle Street Branch of the 1980s, the Labour Party of 2014 boasts a narrow left-wing majority. That majority, after changing the party rules, elected David Cunliffe as its leader and is in the process of constructing a binding policy platform for the next Labour Government. At first glance, then, the lessons of the 1980s appear to have been learned.

All but one – and that the most important of them all. Majorities mean nothing outside the only Labour Party institution that truly matters: the parliamentary caucus. If you cannot control the caucus, then you simply cannot reassure the party that its best efforts will not be rendered worthless through the calculated insubordination of a clique of rebellious caucus members.

This is especially problematic when these insubordinate rebels (most of whom are securely ensconced in safe Labour seats) believe it will be easier for like-minded politicians to protect “the policies this country needs” if David Cunliffe and all that he represents loses the forthcoming general election.

Butcher’s gambit is as powerful today as it was 25 years ago.

What are Cunliffe’s options? Obviously the option of splitting the Labour Party and forming “NewLabour” – the Labour Left’s choice in 1989 – is not available to the party leader. Which leaves the other option put forward by Matt McCarten back in 1988.

“It seems obvious to me now that the right-wing MPs have put their hands up and threatened the party”, Matt told Labour’s president, Rex Jones. “So we should call a special conference of the party and expel them … The Labour Party made a mistake selecting these people so sack them. Throw them out and let them stand against us. They’ll lose and the Labour Party can rebuild itself.”

Chris should name the MPs that he thinks should be explled!

Rik Mayall has died, aged only 56. I loved him in The Young Ones and The New Statesman.

The Press editorial:

The idea of extending the jurisdiction of the District Court to create what would amount to a specialist earthquake court is undoubtedly eye-catching.

Its aim would be to provide a faster, less costly (to claimants at least) jurisdiction to deal with the multiplicity of disputes that have arisen over earthquake claims.

Whether it is necessary and whether it would achieve its aims, or achieve them without introducing perverse incentives, needs significant analysis. Insurance disputes can be complex and difficult. A new court is unlikely to make them any easier, though it may have the potential to streamline the process through them.

The High Court has for some time devoted large resources to a specialist list to deal with earthquake cases.

It began in May 2012 following a commitment by the Chief High Court judge that earthquake cases be dealt with as swiftly as the court’s resources permitted.

Most judges in the High Court are experienced and highly skilled commercial practitioners, well equipped to deal with insurance disputes.

A serious line-up of similarly skilled judiciary would be a bare minimum requirement for the newly proposed court.

Labour’s idea would allow claims of up to $1 million to be brought before the District Court, which has less expertise in complex commercial matters and would require expanding its jurisdiction from the present limit of $200,000.

Simply finding judges equipped to handle the work could be a problem. Labour says they would be found from among retired judges (which means they would be 72 or older) or suitably qualified senior lawyers.

What The Press is saying is that cases will be heard by retired district court judges, rather than high court judges.

Labour also says the government would cover all costs which means that claimants would have an incentive to lodge a claim, no matter how weak it was.

That’s the real problem. The courts would get swamped.

Green MP Jan Logie blogs:

Over the last couple of weeks Labour has suggested immigrants are causing our housing crisis and that we should cut the numbers of immigrants coming in, NZ First has suggested too many unskilled migrants are coming and taking our jobs and National wants us stop those boat people. All this adds up to unhelpful and potentially stigmatising conversation.

I wonder how Penjun and his family and all the other migrants like them are feeling in NZ right now.

Immigration seems to be a difficult topic to discuss sensibly. It has been a trigger for racism here in the past and very worryingly we are seeing the rise of racist political parties in Europe targeting migrants. I don’t want to see such conversations leading to anyone in this country feeling as if they are not valued or are missing out because another group of people is getting more.

Let me say clearly now: the housing crisis is not the fault of recent migrants; the unemployment rate is not the fault of recent migrants; and asylum seekers are not a threat to us.

Good to see Logie call Labour out on this.

On the issue of asylum seekers, I don’t think anyone says they are a threat. I think people are saying we don’t want to encourage people to try and sail to NZ, as more often than not they’ll drown doing so.

The Press reports:

China, Australia and England may be on the itinerary of Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel this year.

Councillors are being asked to approve ratepayer-funded visits by the mayor and elected members to each of Christchurch’s six sister cities once every three-year term, including three trips this year.

This isn’t a criticism of Dalziel, who inherited them, but I’m sceptical about most sister city relationships. the major benefits seems to be regular junkets for Councillors.

Where there is a strong trading relationship, I think there can be benefits. But mostly, they’re of no benefit.

I live in Wellington. I don’t know off hand who are sister cities are. I doubt most businesses know. The only people who know will be the Councillors who get to travel there.

Here’s the total number of sister cities, NZ cities and districts have:

• Australia – 26
• Belgium – 1
• Canada – 2
• China – 33
• Denmark – 1
• Fiji – 1
• France – 4
• Germany – 1
• Greece – 1
• Ireland – 2
• Italy – 1
• Japan – 44
• Netherlands – 1
• Pacific Islands – 3
• South Korea – 3
• UK- 9
• US – 21

Imagine all the junkets as each city gets at least one visit a turn.

And which NZ Councils have the most sister cities. The top 14 are:

1. Auckland – 19
2. Christchurch – 7
3. Gisborne – 6
4. Wellington – 6
5. Rotorua – 5
6. Taupo – 5
7. Hutt City – 4
8. Matamata-Piako – 4
9. Ashburton – 4
10. Dunedin – 4
11. Napier – 4
12. Porirua – 4
13. Thams/Coromandel/Whitianga – 4
14. Timaru – 4

Maybe have a limit of 2 per city!

Liam Hehir writes in the Manawatu Standard:

When I heard about the verdict on Thursday, I couldn’t help but note that it occurred on the 51st anniversary of the resignation of Jack Profumo.

The glamorous and talented Profumo was a rising star of the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party. Elected as the youngest Member of Parliament while still serving as an army officer in World War II, he showed early mettle by helping to defeat the Chamberlain government in defiance of his own party whip.

After the war he married a beautiful film star and quickly rose through the ranks to become Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War.

His trouble started with an affair. Worse, his mistress was also conducting an affair with a Soviet diplomat at the same time – adding a national security element to matters.

Then, fatally, he lied about the matter in a personal statement to Parliament.

Such statements were considered to be given under a strict code of personal honour, the breaking of which was unthinkable.

When he confessed the truth, it rocked the English-speaking world.

He immediately resigned from Parliament and the “Profumo affair” became the archetypal political scandal.

I hope John Banks can take some inspiration from what the British politician did next.

Shortly following his resignation, Profumo started working at a charity in the East End of London.

Contrary to modern expectations, this does not mean he took up a paid position as “issues director”, “communications manager” or “government relations liaison” for the organisation.

He insisted on scrubbing toilets – something one can scarcely imagine any contemporary politician doing.

For 40 years, he toiled in determined obscurity. Only with great reluctance could he be persuaded to put his considerable skills toward the running of the organisation. He never wrote a book about his experiences, he never gave another television interview and he never sought a comeback in public life.

The heart-warming thing is that, though he never sought it, he was rehabilitated by his good works.

He became a widely admired figure.

On the day that he died, his name had come to stand for atonement as much, if not more, than it had for scandal and infamy.

Few of us never stuff up.  I am a big believer in the power of redemption.

Profumo lived until 2006. he became a CBE in 1975.

One News reports:

The Police Association is signalling police will take a tougher line over complaints of a political nature following the John Banks donations case.

Isn’t that a statement that the Commissioner should make, not the union? I’m a fan of the Police Association, but AFAIK they don’t decide prosecutions.

Police Association President Greg O’Connor has told ONE News the case has taught the police a lesson.

Mr O’Connor says he thinks in the past there has been a tendancy in the police to think of such cases as political spats with no winners, and that whatever the police do, they’re going to get criticised.

“So best just do the investigation and don’t get involved in any political stoush,” he says.

Sadly this is right. Their decisions around the 2005 over-spending were disgraceful, and showed not just cowardice but great ignorance of the actual law.

“I think this case has changed the game and I think from now on every case, every complaint will be looked at very differently.”

Mr O’ Connor says “the ante has been upped” and the police may well need to set up some more specialist ability to investigate such complaints.

Well overdue. They haven’t even made decisions on most of the 2011 cases referred to them by the Electoral Commission. Their inaction makes electoral law a farce.

Labour’s Justice spokesman Andrew Little says the police seem to find it difficult to make the judgement call on whether or not to prosecute over political complaints.

Mr Little says a new body could be established or a new unit set up within the Electoral Commission to deal with these cases.

I’ve long advocated that. Have submitted to the last two general elections reviews on it. But none of the parties in Parliament have ever backed a change to remove prosecutions from the Police. It would be a good thing if they do.

But Greg O’Connnor says that would be just adding another layer of bureaucracy.

“Look, all these different bodies that are set up, usually they’re done because you can’t trust the current investigative body,” he says.

Well the Police have shown themselves unwilling or incompetent in 2005, 2008 and 2011 when it comes to electoral law investigations. I say three strikes and you’re out.

The Herald reports:

About 500 planning staff at Auckland Council face an uncertain future in a major restructuring exercise announced today.

Chief planning officer Dr Roger Blakeley said the council planning office had undergone significant change since the chief planning office was designed by the agency that set up the Super City in 2009.

“Our world is very different today. We have moved from the development of major plans to their implementation. There is still much planning to be done such as the completion of the Unitary Plan, structure plans and area plans.

“Nevertheless, we need to prepare ourselves for the next three years to be fit for purpose,” Dr Blakeley said.

Town planners tend to be the biggest compliance cost on a city. I say get rid of 90% of them, and see if anyone complains.

Andrew at Grumpollie has put together this very useful table showing the different methodologies of the five public pollsters (I don’t count Horizon) in NZ.

Russell Brown at Public Address noted:

One big advantage for the political Left of John Banks’ sorry experience with the courts last week is that it meant people weren’t talking about the Left’s really awful result in the latest Roy Morgan poll.

Morgan has National up seven points to 52.5% support, and Labour and the Greens both down to a combined 38%. The Greens shed 4.5 points to slump to 9% support, their lowest level since 2011. This will hurt at The Standard and the Daily Blog, where Roy Morgan polls and their inclusion of mobile phones are something of an article of faith.

It’s possible that this is an outlier poll — it does, after all, show Act doubling its support — but while Gary Morgan’s commentary on the results is typically bonkers, there’s nothing in particular wrong with the company’s methodology. And, significantly, the swing is reflected in the regular Government Confidence Rating (whether New Zealand is “heading in the right direction” or not.) It simply looks like a very healthy post-Budget poll for National.

But a friend put another interpretation to me on Friday: that the public has had a look at Internet-Mana and decided a potential centre-left coalition is really not to its taste. Perhaps Labour has internal polling to similar effect, explaining the spluttering reaction of of a number of Labour MPs to the prospect of cooperating with the party of Kim Dotcom and Laila Harre.

The commentary on the Roy Morgan polls is generally hilarious, and somewhat removed from reality. This doesn’t mean their polls are inaccurate.

However what Andrew’s table shows is that we know very little about how they conduct their polls – which would help people make a judgement on reliability.

The other four pollsters have signed up to the NZ Political Polling Code. This requires signatories to publicly release significant aspects of their methodologies. This is an important step for transparency. Roy Morgan has not signed up to the code, and we don’t know a lot about how their polls are done. We don’t even know if they weight the polls to the NZ adult population.

This doesn’t mean their polls are wrong, just as it doesn’t mean pollsters who have signed up will always get it right. For example a poll I did on attitudes to smoking and lung cancer found a lower prevalence rate for smoking than the census. Now the census figure is almost certainly the more accurate, so the difference may be down to how people respond to a phone poll vs a census, or it may be that even with weighting we under-surveyed current smokers. Good pollsters will always be critiquing their own methodology and considering how to enhance or review it.

It would be a very good thing if Roy Morgan did release more information on their methodology, so people can understand their results better in the right context.

The Dom Post reports:

For years it has been labelled too expensive. Now Westpac Stadium is finally investigating getting a roof.

But if it goes ahead, it will require ratepayer money to get it over the line – and stadium chief executive Shane Harmon says the price tag would be in the “ballpark” of $60 million to $100m.

No, no and no.

Sure a roof would be nice. But no way should ratepayers be hit with $1,000 per household to pay for it.

Former Labour Party general secretary Mike Smith writes:

David Cunliffe badly needs a new stump speech. On Thursday in Whanganui I heard him depress a large and sympathetic audience for ten minutes with tales of national woe, then promise a positive campaign but give no details. It is good to know that a positive campaign is proposed. Labour has promised an economic upgrade; it also needs a communications upgrade, and besides being positive it must be relevant. 

Preaching woe and doom when 65% of New Zealanders think NZ is heading in the right direction is not the smartest strategy,

I hate to give free advice, but look at what John Key did in 2008. He was relentlessly positive about NZ, but said we could be doing even better. Telling people their country sucks only appeals to people who, well think the country sucks.

Too much of Labour’s communication has been relentlessly negative, coming from what appears to be a pervasive view that “the purpose of opposition is opposition.” That’s fine if your purpose is to stay in opposition; my view is that the purpose of opposition is to get into government as soon as possible. To do that people have to know what is on offer, have a sense of hope and purpose, and that can’t be done with a negative approach.

I have two simple tests for people.  Can anyone name:

• A significant education policy from Labour, apart from repealing national standards and charter schools?
• A significant health policy from Labour

Even groups in those sectors complain that they have no idea what Labour stands for, or will do. It’s 103 days until the election, and their likely policies should have been spelt out a year or so ago.

Finally if Labour is going to run a positive campaign, the its media unit needs to get with the programme. We’ve been getting their feed for several years, and endless series of negative or critical straplines is very off-putting. They also all follow a similar pattern; gripe followed (sometimes) by alternative. I suspect many of them by now don’t even get opened.

It’s easy to oppose in opposition. It is harder to create a narrative that people want to listen to.

The Wellington Chamber of Commerce has two events on the 18th of June.

They have a breakfast with David Cunliffe for $45.

Then a lunch with Steven Joyce for $55.

Now they price these events based on what they think people will pay (Hence why lunch with PM with Trans-Tasman Council was $500 or so, and $85 at the Chamber).

This shows that Steven Joyce is rated more valuable than David Cunliffe!

NZ Initiative Chair Rooger Partridge writes:

Since the publication of The Spirit Level in 2009, and its ‘devastating critique’, The Spirit Level Delusion, in 2010, debates in the media and among politicians have been gripped by wealth inequality fever. The latest instalment is French economist Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century – a book which is at the centre of its own maelstrom over the accuracy of its analysis.

But is inequality a worthy cause célèbre? All other things being equal, few people on either the left or right would disagree that less inequality is better than more. And any parent will know that equality will lead to a more civil, stable, state of affairs within the family – and this is no doubt also true for society as a whole. But the factors that drive inequality in economic outcomes in a free market economy also produce great benefits. China may now have greater extremes of wealth than it did before Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, but the Chinese live 25 years longer and are 50 times richer than they were 25 years ago.

Yep China is now a far more unequal country. Far better when everyone was poor and starving!

Focussing on inequality – and looking to redistributive policies to solve it – risks throwing the baby out with the bath water. We would not restrain our more talented child just to make her less successful, younger brother feel better, so why should we levy our most talented, productive citizens?

Indeed.

What is needed is a focus on the real problem: that not everyone in our society has the skills needed to take advantage of the opportunities that should be available to all. Among them are the 20 per cent of New Zealand’s school-leavers who, year after year, do not achieve NCEA level 2. It requires a suspension of belief to conclude they are failing because the rich are getter richer. The problem is more complex, but we will not solve it if we look in the wrong place.

The focus should be about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome – the official policy of the Labour Party.

As some doctors here for for taxes and bans on certain food and drinks, Cristina Odone has a different solution – hold parents responsible, rather than advertisers.

She writes in The Telegraph:

“What do we hate? The Nanny state!” might be a suitable marching song for conservatives — until, that is, children’s well-being is compromised. When parents abuse their role as their child’s protectors the state is right to intervene. Which is why the couple in Norfolk, arrested for allowing their son’s weight to reach 15 stone, should face court.

The son is aged only 11. To be 95 kgs at 11 years old is horrendous. He’s only five feet tall.

Imagine parents who regularly gave their son heroin; or a bottle of vodka. Anyone observing such behaviour would instinctively call the police to save the child. The same now has to be true of a child whose parents are feeding him too many of the wrong things. We now know that food — junk food, fatty food, sugar, additives  – can prove as damaging to a child’s health as heroin or alcohol. Indeed, sugar is so toxic that experts claim it is as bad as tobacco: it leads not only to obesity, but to diabetes too.

Parents who ignore these facts and ply their children with excess food (or just really bad food) are abusing their children as clearly as those who let them take drugs. In the case of the couple in Norfolk, their son suffers from autism: he is all the more at the mercy of his parents’ care. They defend his weight by claiming that it is down to bad genes. Wrong: it’s down to the parents.

Genes of course play a part. But they don’t get you that large at age 11.

The pressure is on to change Britons’ diet. Sadly, the best way forward is to scare the living daylights out of parents who have been too lazy to monitor their child’s eating. The threat of a prison sentence, and of social services taking the child in care, sound draconian but might prove the only solutions.

There is a point where it probably does become child abuse.

Stuff reports:

Kim Dotcom is offering $5 million to anyone who can help him with his extradition case. …

The German internet mogul and founder of the Internet Party is now offering $5 million to anyone who can prove government corruption over the handling of his case. 

“We are asking for information that proves unlawful or corrupt conduct by the US government, the New Zealand government, spy agencies, law enforcement and Hollywood”, Dotcom told website Torrentfreak.com.

Now thinking about this, doesn’t the act of offering $5 million for proof of his pet conspiracy theory, not imply that he currently has – well no proof at all.

The extradition hearing is next month. No doubt he will try and get it delayed until there is a Government he has helped fund in place. But regardless, why offer the bounty at such a late stage?

An interesting graphic from the Washington Post showing the most popular religion after Christianity in each US state.

In the North East it is Judaism.

In the mid west it is Buddhism.

In the South and Great Lakes it is Islam.

And in three states it is Hindu or Baha’i.

The state that is most Jewish is New York at around 6%.

Utah by the way is 58% Mormon.

Kuaotunu Dusk, Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand

Kuaotunu is one of my favourite beaches in the Coromandel and on this occasion I arrived just in time to capture a truly stunning sunset and dusk. The colours in the sky lasted just a few seconds with such intensity leaving me pretty quickly to get my camera  gear sorted to capture this photograph.

Still uploading to the site so no larger view of it this week.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey

The latest Greens policy:

The Blueprint For The Future, a digital manufacturing strategy for New Zealand, will:

• develop a digital manufacturing strategy;

• support and develop 3D printing;

• educate and empower students in the use of digital manufacturing.

So why do the Greens want NZ to become a 3D printing country? Is it:

• a) so NZ can cope with printing 3D money for them?
• b) so they can 3D print money printing machines for them?
• c) To clone Laila and Clint for them, as they’re still mourning their loss
• d) To build their own castle in their parliamentary office?

And how will this 3D printing future be achieved?

“The Green Party will institute a taskforce to establish a digital manufacturing strategy for New Zealand, one part of our blueprint for a smart green economy,” said Mr Hughes.

Oh, a taskforce!

I am personally a fan of 3D printing and think it has a great future. But companies can and will respond to the market opportunities it presents without the Government telling them what to do.

My position on plain packaging has it that it might be justified, if there is evidence it actually reduces smoking rates. If NZ is to proceed with it, I have advocated for a regional trial of it so smoking rates in that region can be compared to the rest of the country after a few years.

So far only one country has implemented plain packaging.  The Australian reports (paywall) on what has happened:

Labor’s nanny state push to kill off the country’s addiction to cigarettes with plain packaging has backfired, with new sales figures showing tobacco consumption growing during the first full year of the new laws.

Policies should be based on evidence, and the evidence is that sales have increased. But maybe they were on an increasing trend anyway, and the law meant they did not increase so much?

The 0.3 per cent increase, though modest, goes against a 15.6 per slide in tobacco sales over the previous four years — and undermines claims by then health minister Nicola Roxon that Australia would introduce the “world’s toughest anti-smoking laws”.

Well that’s a huge reversal.

Plain packaging laws, which came into force in December 2012, have instead boosted demand for cheaper cigarettes, with reports of a more than 50 per cent rise in the market for lower cost cigarettes.

Makes sense. You destroy brand differentiation, and people then just choose on price – and the cheaper prices lead to greater sales. A huge own goal.

Australasian Association of Convenience Stores chief executive Jeff Rogut said sales by his members grew by $120 million or 5.4 per cent last year. “Talking to members, one of the most common refrains they get from people coming into stores is, ‘What are your cheapest smokes?’,” he said.

The law of unintended consequences.

In the wake of the introduction of plain packaging, and the hike in the tobacco excise, 21-year-old Brisbane finance worker Dunja Zivkovic said she has switched to a cheaper brand and smokes more. She said none of her friends had quit in the wake of the policy change.

Both Ms Zivkovic and her friend and fellow smoker, 32-year-old Gertrude Sios, insist plain packaging does not work as a ­deterrent.

“If someone is addicted to smoking, they’ll spend their last $12 on smokes, not food,” Ms Zivkovic said. Geoffrey Smith, the general manager of consumer products at Roy Morgan Research, said plain packaging was “not having much impact”. “It’s causing a shift towards lower priced product rather than ‘I’m stopping smoking’,” he said.

I’ve always been sceptical that brands cause people to smoke, as opposed to cause people to pick a particular brand.

“Smoking kills 15,000 people annually with social and economic costs estimated (at) $31.5 billion each year,” she said. “The latest ABS data shows smoking rates have been continuing to decline.” But data released in recent weeks by the NSW and South Australian governments show smoking on the rise.

Last year’s NSW population health survey, released last month, showed 16.4 per cent of all adults in the state smoke, up from 14.7 per cent in 2011, while in South Australia rates were up from 16.7 per cent to 19.4 per cent over the past year.

Which backs up the sales data.

The signs of increased smoking echo another Labor intervention into health policy — the 70 per cent tax hike on ready-mixed spirits or alcopops announced in 2008.

Nielsen research found that while alcopop consumption dropped by 30 per cent, there was an overall net decline in alcohol consumption of just 0.2 per cent.

People substituted to other alcoholic drinks such as hard spirits.

Some may argue that one year’s data is not enough to judge the policy on. If so, then how long a period would they agree is long enough to then decide if the policy has succeeded or failed?

If three years, then fine. No one else should implement plain packaging until the three years are up, and we can see if smoking rates declined or not due to plain packaging in Australia. So far, after one year, the answer seems to be no.