The Dom Post editorial:

It is a rare feat for a government of any hue to embark on changes to workplace laws that win the approval of employers and unions alike.

Labour Minister Simon Bridges has managed to achieve that with the overhaul of health and safety rules and regulations he revealed last week.

The package activates nearly all the recommendations from the Independent Task Force on Workplace Health and Safety, which was set up following the Pike River Coal mining tragedy.

The fact the measures have been broadly welcomed by the Council of Trade Unions and Business NZ is a good indication the task force struck the right balance between the need to reduce on-the-job accidents  and strangling businesses with red tape.

I think the key thing is the flexibility for smaller businesses, as a one size fits all prescription would be very bad,

The Herald reports:

The salaries paid to the Auckland Mayor and the council’s chief executive would be slashed drastically if one candidate has his way.

John Minto is pushing for a living wage of $18.40 per hour for all council workers.

He says it would be funded by cutting the salaries paid to the mayor, chief executive and other senior managers.

“We would tie the mayor’s salary to four times the living wage, and we would tie the CEO’s salary to five times the living wage.”

Mr Minto’s plan would see the mayor’s salary cut from $240,000 a year to $153,000.

But the chief executive would take a much bigger hit – more than half a million dollars would be slashed from that salary, taking it from $768,000 to just under $200,000.

I urge Aucklanders to vote to trial communism. Just because it has failed in Cuba, Laos, the USSR, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Ethiopa, Kampuchea and East Germany is purely bad luck.

Now that Labour has declared they believe in equality of outcome, not just equality of opportunity, I look forward to them endorsing John Minto for Mayor.

Campbell Live is trying to run what they call the biggest opinion poll in NZ history.

In the next week, we’re aiming for the biggest opinion poll in NZ history. Do you support the GCSB Bill? Vote here: http://t.co/wWbLR9bZyT

— Campbell Live (@CampbellLiveNZ) August 9, 2013

That neutral observer on such issues, is promoting it of course:

If you are a New Zealander who cares about freedom & privacy please vote in this #GCSB poll: http://t.co/2u4gwUvyUw

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 9, 2013

However expert pollster Grumpollie points out that the so called poll is meaningless in terms of accuracy:

Here’s a really important point for anyone wanting to judge the accuracy of this poll –big numbers do not provide representative data!

Here’s why…

This poll commits the ultimate sin of survey research – it uses a self-selecting sample.

People choose to take part based on the topic. This means that the poll only represents the New Zealanders who feel strongly enough about the GCSB bill to take part in the poll.

He points out that having a self-selecting sample, rather than a random sample, makes a huge difference. For example all the polls on same sex marriage with random samples showed a majority or plurality in favour. But the Campbell Live text in poll found only 22% in favour and 78% against. A result that has no scientific usefulness. Note that particular poll also had a huge number of responses. What counts is whether the sample is random – now how many people take part.

But the problems are even worse than that for the Campbell Live so called poll. Thomas Lumley at Stats Chat points out that to vote through their website you need to give Campbell Live your name, e-mail address and postal address. He points out:

Wouldn’t you expect that people unhappy with the prospect of increased (legal) surveillance of New Zealanders might be less willing to give all their personal details with their vote?

But you can understand why a Mediaworks show goes with an unscientific poll than a scientific poll. A scientific poll actually costs money to do. But those who use the text option for their bogus polls end up paying money to Mediaworks, so Mediaworks makes money out of the bogus poll.

Things are not going well for Kevin Rudd. First of all it seems he cheated in the election debate last night. The debate rules said the leaders could have a pen and paper only – and no other documentation or props. Yet Rudd had detailed notes on various topics which he referred to.

The rule may be silly, but if you agree to them you stick to them. It is cheating if one side is using notes, and the other is not.

The more significant cheating is Labor’s using taxpayer funds for their election campaign. The Government is spending millions of taxpayer dollars promoting their new boat people policy. The constitutional caretaker conventions clearly state that during an election campaign, and advertising of controversial policies must cease.

The Finance Department told the relevant Government Departments to halt the advertising campaign, but Ministers intervened and  over-ruled the Finance Department. The head of the DPMC has said he is powerless to do anything as “the Department does not have the power to enforce the observance of the conventions”

Taxpayers are funding this $30 million campaign, during the election period. It is outrageous but typical of left parties who view taxpayer money as their own. We have own own experience with Labour’s pledge cards.

Meanwhile Tony Abbott took part in a 14 km road race – as a guide to a blind triathlete! I like most think it was a pretty cynical election stunt – but to be fair he has acted as a guide for blind runners before.

The real good news of the last week is that Abbott has declared he will not wear his budgie smugglers during the election campaign!

The Herald has done a new report card on the performance of Ministers. Not online, but a photo is on Facebook. The summary of scores is:

• Steven Joyce 9.0 (+2.0)
• Bill English 8.5 (+0.5)
• Chris Finlayson 8.5 (-0.5)
• Tony Ryall 8.0 (-0.5)
• Paula Bennett 8.0  (+1.0)
• Murray McCully 8.0 (+1.0)
• Anne Tolley 8.0 (+1.0)
• Nick Smith 8.0
• Tim Groser 8.0 (nc)
• Simon Bridges 8.0 (+1.0)
• Gerry Brownlee 7.0 (-0.5)
• Judith Collins 7.0 (-1.5)
• Jonathan Coleman 7.0 (-1.0)
• Nikki Kaye 7.0
• John Key 6.0 (-1.0)
• Amy Adams 6.0 (-1.0)
• Chris Tremain 6.0 (nc)
• Hekia Parata 5.0 (+2.0)
• Nathan Guy 5.0 (-1.0)
• Craig Foss 5.0 (-1.0)

As always you agree with some of them, and disagree with others. I think most of them are pretty fair and Steven Joyce is definitely doing a great job. However I think it is beyond ridiculous to have the Prime Minister in the bottom quarter of Cabinet. National is polling better five years in than any other Government has ever managed – and no small part of that is because of the PM. With respect I think the Herald is too focused on issues that matter to them – but not to most New Zealanders.

The average or mean score was 7.2 out of 10, which is an increase of 0.4 from a year ago.

The median was 7.5, up from 7.0 a year ago.

If you take the 10 frontbench Ministers, their average is 7.4 out of 10, the same as a year ago.

John Key has announced a package of changes to help first home buyers get their first house. The key changes are:

• Price caps for the KiwiSaver First Home Deposit Subsidy increases from $400,000 to $485,000 in Auckland, $300,000 to $400,000 in Christchurch, and some other increases
• The income cap for a couple to access the KFHDS increases from $100,000 to $120,000

The Government expects the number of first home buyers receiving the subsidy will go from 4,700 to 10,000 a year and the number of Welcome Home Loans from 845 to 2,500 – so a doubling and trebling respectively.

The total cost of the package is $64 million over four years.

There is a table showing for each area what the price cap is as a percentage of the mean sale price. Major areas are:

• Auckland 76%
• Wellington 76%
• Christchurch 94%
• Tauranga 86%
• Hamilton 92%

They seem pretty fair to me. First time buyers generally will not be buying a house at the mean or average. That’s what you move into years later when you sell your first home and upgrade.

Cherie Howie at NZ Herald reports:

Firebrand former mayor Michael Laws says Wanganui people are urging him to don the mayoral chains again.

Laws, who retired from the mayoralty in 2010 after six years, has confirmed he is thinking of standing again, after a “delegation of folk” offered their support.

My theory is that you only openly talk about standing if you have decided to stand.

Reuben Shadbolt, son of longtime Invercargill mayor and former Waitemata City leader Tim Shadbolt – is to contest the Auckland mayoralty. He is also seeking a Whau Local Board seat.

Don’t think Len will be too worried.

And 3 News reports:

Two new candidates have stepped up to challenge Lianne Dalziel for the Christchurch mayoralty

Paul Lonsdale, who is the central city manager of the city’s Business Association, officially announced his plans to stand as an independent today.

The 52-year-old has lived in Christchurch for over 40 years and helped get the Re:Start container mall project up and running.

“I want to give people a choice,” he told 3 News this morning. “It’s an opportunity to create some debate and flush out exactly where people sit in Christchurch and how they see the future.”

The long-time local says his connections to the city’s business community would help the city get back on its feet.

Lonsdale is a serious candidate, and will indeed give people a choice.

Q+A on TV One did a poll asking people who should be the next leader of National after John Key. It wasn’t an open ended question, but asked them to pick between Bill English, Steven Joyce and Judith Collins. The results were:

• Bill English 23%
• Steven Joyce 16%
• Judith Collins 11%

Of course there is no vacancy, and the eventual decision will be one for National’s caucus – not a public vote.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has shelved the latest plans to expand Waitemata Harbour for port business until the consequences for the rest of the city are known.

Last night, Mr Brown said the city needed to have a conversation about the future of Auckland’s port based on proper analysis.

“Before we make any decisions about whether the port expands or otherwise, we need an informed discussion with Aucklanders, underpinned by a robust study that includes consideration of economic, social and environmental factors.”

Details of the study, which is not likely to start until next year, are expected to be made by Mr Brown in the coming weeks.

Mr Brown’s statement follows a series on port expansion by the Herald this week and a fresh campaign by the Heart of the City lobby group to have a rethink and not rush Ports of Auckland’s latest expansionary plans into the Unitary Plan.

This is a good thing. I am far from convinced that port expansion is appropriate on its current location. I’d like to see a fully independent (ie not paid for by POAL) appraisal of options for future locations so they can be considered.

10/10 this week in 35 seconds. Quiz here.

Andrew Carswell looks objectively at whether the tag of psychopath given to Kevin Rudd (by a member of his own caucus!) is accurate or not. He first points out what a psychopath is not:

 Is the man running this country really a psychopath, given the aforementioned ferocious descriptions appear to tick plenty of the boxes that define such a diagnosis?

Firstly, one has to demystify the term.

Such a designate is no longer deemed by experts to be the exclusive domain of murderers, serial killers and rapists.

No, you could indeed be sitting next to one. Your boss could be one, or, perhaps more likely, your high-flying CEO in his spacious corner office suite.

In fact prominent Australian psychotherapist John Clarke claims that between one and three per cent of the Australian population could be certifiably deemed psychopathic, and he warns not just police to keep a look out but companies and political powerbrokers.

Anthropologist Stephen Juan suggests that one in 10 companies are headed by a corporate psychopath.

It seems psychopaths are everywhere, and they are more likely to wear a suit and tie, than carry a bloodied weapon or be pointing a sawn-off shotgun.

“One of the misconceptions about psychopathy itself is that people think a psychopath goes out and kills people. By definition, they are somebody that is recklessly indifferent to any physical, emotional harm they may cause,” criminal mind expert Steve van Aperen said.

“There are certainly many undiagnosed psychopaths in business and politics.”

Juan says often people get confused between the terms psychopath and psychotic, which makes people less inclined to label someone as the former and thus grouping them with such fiends as Ivan Milat, Charles Manson or Martin Bryant. The distinction is reality, he says. Those suffering from psychosis have lost grip on reality. Those deemed psychopathic are very much aware of it, and are attempting to control it.

So you can be psychopath and not be a psychotic killer. What a psychopath is about it:

In a bid to unmask those with psychopathic tendencies and prevent crime, Canadian criminal psychologist and FBI adviser Robert D Hare created the Psychopathy Checklist in the early 1990s that remains the gold standed for reference.

Its defined set of traits include impulsiveness, superficial charm, grandiosity, callousness, manipulative, lack of remorse or guilt, propensity to blame others, poor behavioural control, egocentric.

Whether unfairly or resoundingly just, Kevin Rudd’s name has oft been etched beside those traits, by members of his own camp or from across enemy lines.

The trouble for Rudd is that list of characteristics describes him to a tee.

The latest Nielsen data is here. Major papers are:

• NZ Herald 539,000 (-27,000, -6% drop in last year)
• Waikato Times 87,000 (-17,000, -17%)
• Dominion Post 234,000 (-7,000, -4%)
• The Press 209,000 (-29,000, -13%)
• ODT 98,000 (-4,000, -5%)

Significant that despite a growing population, all major dailies dropped.

Weeklies:

• Sunday News 203,000 (-60,000, -23%)
• SST 432,000 (-82,000, -17%)
• HoS 366,000 (-28,000, -8%)
• NBR 51,000 (-4,000, -9%)

The two Fairfax weeklies are plummeting. We may see the HoS beat the SST in the next few years – remarakable as the HoS was only created a few years ago.

The PM has just announced the major points of the third stage of the Government’s RMA reforms. They are very significant, and are aimed to lowering housing costs and speeding up consenting. This means I am sure Labour and Greens will oppose them.

The major points are:

• halve from 20 to 10 workign days the time limit for consents for straightforward applications such as adding a deck or veranda
• require fixed-fee options for certain consents, so there is certainty of cost
• Give Councils the ability to waive resource consents for insignificant variations from planning rules such as a retaining wall being slightly over a permitted height
• Require Councils to provide a minimum of 10 years of urban land supply to cope with projected population growth
• Make subdivisions non-notified unless they are clearly not of the type anticipated by the relevant plan and zoning

These look really good to me, and should make a real difference to reducing both the cost and time of building or altering a house.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Labour MP Phil Goff is under fire for a “misogynistic” barb directed at Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.

During a parliamentary debate on new spying laws yesterday, the pair traded insults about election defeats.

Goff mocked Finlayson for being “beaten on three occasions, each time by a woman”.

“I’ve won 11 times and I’ve lost once, but the member in the chair [Finlayson] has lost three times,” he said.

“You would think that would be a humbling experience, but the arrogance of the minister shows no sign at all that he’s learnt from being beaten on three occasion, each time by a woman member of Parliament.”

A pretty silly thing to say. Goff obviously feels that losing to a woman MP is obviously more humbling that losing to a male MP – otherwise you wouldn’t mention the gender at all.

The insult created a social media stir, with tweeters branding Goff misogynistic.

Megan Hands asked: “Why does @phil_goff have such 1950s views?”

Shaun Willis tweeted: “Neanderthal man is very much alive within the Labour party.”

Kate Sutton tweeted that the Mt Roskill MP’s remarks were “bad form”.

“Its that kind of sexism the Labour Party doenst [sic] need,” she said.

Now it should be disclosed that all three commenters have political connections. Megan and Shaun are Young Nats and Kate is in Labour. What is even more newsworthy is that Kate was the Womens Vice President of the Labour Party for six years – so having her call Goff out in public as making sexist comments is remarkable.

 Goff said the storm was “utter crap” and he was only being accurate.

“It was just a statement of fact. I could have said ‘beaten by a Labour MP on three occasions’. I didn’t really think about it,” he said.

“Nobody in the House took offence at it, least of all my female colleagues. So this is a beat-up … I think it’s drawing a long bow.

“I’ve been a member of Parliament for 30 years and I’ve never been accused of being a misogynist.”

Well you have now, by your party’s own former Womens VP.

And the reality is that Goff didn’t say Labour MP. He said a woman VP, and there was no need to sa the gender unless you thought it was worse to lose to a “girl”. Think of it like this. If Finlayson had lost to a Maori MP, would Goff be saying Finlayson should be more humble because he lost to a Maori MP? Of course not.

Brian Fallow writes at NZ Herald:

The Labour Party probably regrets invoking the work of Professor Frank Wolak when making the case that New Zealand’s electricity system is broken and in need of a radical overhaul.

Announcing its policy alongside the Greens in April it cited as evidence that the electricity market is not competitive “a 2009 report by international expert Frank Wolak which concluded that between 2001 and 2007 the four big generators extracted super profits of 18 per cent ($4.3 billion) which came at the expense of higher prices for consumers”.

Having put those words in the Stanford economist’s mouth, Labour’s finance spokesman David Parker got to hear him spit them out, when he gave a lecture to the Victoria University’s Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation in Wellington last week.

Wolak also made it clear he is no fan of cost-based systems such as Labour is peddling, where – instead of a market where generators offer power at whatever prices they see fit – the system operator, armed with a mathematical model and the technical specifications of the various generating units, decides which will run at any given time.

In fact he called their policy a sham. Now many people have called it a sham – but when the person calling it a sham is the man whose work is quoted as the rationale for the policy – well that is devastating.

So what about an alternative cost-based system, adopted in several Latin American countries, where instead of generators competing to be dispatched on the basis of the prices they offer, the system operator decides which will run and what the spot price will be, based on its information about various units’ variable operating costs?

The difficulty with this in a predominantly hydro system is deciding what the opportunity cost of water is in any given dam at any given time, that is, what future value is forgone by sending it through the turbines, and doing that involves trusting the mathematical innards of some black-box model.

One problem is that a key input for such a model is setting a cost of shortage. If it is set too low – and the political pressure is to do that – wholesale prices will be low in normal years but the risk of power shortages in dry years is high.

And many of the countries or states that have such a model are indeed facing blackouts.

Wolak counsels against going that route. It’s far better, he suggests, to make the wholesale market more competitive by making the demand side more responsive to price signals.

“If you are this close to the finish line with the actual market and this far away in the cost-based market, why do it?”

Because you are desperate to win power, and hope it sounds good to the public.

When asked about a single-buyer market, another feature of the Labour/Greens policy, Wolak was dismissive.

If the single buyer simply aggregated the demand that was there anyway, and did not reduce demand in response to higher prices, there would be no competitive benefit, just extra overheads.

So Wolak says Labour’s policy will reduce competition, increase costs and increase teh risk of power shortages. And this from the man they cite as the rationale for their policy. How humiliating.

The Herald reports:

Proposed cuts to recreational snapper quotas have hit a nerve with politicians on both sides of the House as electorate MPs in fishing hotspots come under pressure for meddling with fishers’ bag limits.

Fisheries Minister Nathan Guy was grilled at Parliament yesterday over possible restrictions on the recreational fishery which were designed to help rebuild the depleted Snapper 1 fishery from Northland to Bay of Plenty.

United Future leader Peter Dunne said the proposals were absurd while independent MP Brendan Horan compared the rules to that of a police state.

Labour fisheries spokesman David Cunliffe claimed tens of thousands of New Zealanders were outraged by the proposals because snapper stocks were healthy outside Bay of Plenty and because the proposals did not include a cut to the commercial take.

Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders do recreational fishing, and you meddle with their enjoyment at your peril.

Mr Guy stressed that the proposals were still in the consultation phase.

Options included either a lower total recreation catch or controls on recreation catch. The controls range from cutting the bag limit to three, raising the minimum legal size to 36cm, or a combination of the two. The minister could go beyond these options in his final decision, which would come into force on October 1.

The current catch limit is nine fish. Three is a ridiculously low level, and even including it as an option is unhelpful.

Even though it is just a consultation, what appears to be angering people are:

• All three options propose a reduction in the catch limit and/or increase in the minimum size. There is no status quo option.
• The commercial quotas are not being reviewed, just the recreational quotas

The consultation document is here and and a q+a here.

UPDATE:

A reader has pointed out:

• There are a wide range of options, including the option of cutting the catch limit for commercial fishers. David Cunliffe is wrong to say this isn’t an option. It is.
•  The options range from changing the overall catch up or down by 500 tonnes, or the status quo.
• After that decision, the Minister has a range of options. Quota changes could be for recreational or commercial fishers. They could go down, up, or stay the same.
• The Minister has said the option of cutting the bag limit to three is only one option at the extreme end, and is unlikely.

That’s useful clarification. I have to say though the consultation document is very opaque and my reading of it is that most of the focus was on the potential reduction in catch limits and increases in minimum sizes. References to commercial quota changes seem to be a brief mention, rather than any detailed option. So hence it is not surprising that people have got somewhat worked up.

The Secondary Schools Debating Council has announced:

Thirty six of New Zealand’s top secondary school debaters will gather in Wellington this weekend for the National Finals of the Russell McVeagh New Zealand Schools’ Debating Championships, hosted by Victoria University of Wellington.

The two best teams will meet in the Grand Final on Monday 12 August debating “This House would not prosecute people who download and share entertainment media on the Internet.”

The Debating Council is partnering with InternetNZ for this year’s Grand Final, to encourage public debate and education over internet issues.

Desley Horton, the President of the Schools’ Debating Council said that the Grand Final should be a great debate on a highly topical issue: “As we move into a digital age, young people in particular are increasingly questioning whether or not our laws are fit for purpose and up to date. It’ll be fascinating to see what New Zealand’s brightest young minds have to say about this issue.” …

Teams from Wellington, Auckland, Canterbury, Otago-Southland, Hawke’s Bay, Northland, Central North Island, Waikato and Kahurangi-Marlborough will take part in seven preliminary rounds of debates over the weekend at Victoria University of Wellington’s Law School.

Students will only find out the topic and what side they are to argue one hour before the debates.

The Grand Final between the top two teams at the Championships will take place in the Legislative Council Chamber at Parliament on Monday 12 August at 2.30pm, hosted by Hon Peter Dunne. 

d

Stuff reports:

Labour Minister Simon Bridges says he will not “muck around” in taking a Pike River recovery plan to the Cabinet.

Families of the 29 men killed in a series of explosions in the West Coast coalmine in 2010 are battling to retrieve the victims’ remains.

A plan to re-enter the mine to try to recover the bodies is believed to be close to being finalised, possibly as early as tomorrow morning.

It is understood the proposal would involve sealing off the top of the ventilation shaft and pumping the mine full of nitrogen, forcing out any methane gas and allowing miners to walk up the tunnel.

The proposal must be approved as safe by the board of mine owner Solid Energy, the High Hazards Unit of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Government.

Bridges said the Government would back a “technically credible” proposal.

Officials had been meeting every fortnight, he said.

“What I can tell you is that as soon as Solid Energy sign off a plan it will come to me, and I won’t muck around. I will be bringing that to Cabinet forthwith.”

If there is a credible, safe and practical plan for entry into the mine, that is an excellent thing. I am sure cost is not a factor – it is all about safety. The key thing is if both Solid energy and the HHU unit agree it is a safe and workable proposal. If they both agree, I would be surprised if it does not happen.

iSentia blogged:

It’s often argued that in the modern news cycle the mainstream media (MSM) can downplay “hard news” issues in favour of lighter topics that appeal to a celebrity obsessed culture. This is said to decrease coverage of “hard news” topics when they are forced to contend with “distractions” for agenda dominance.

The GCSB Amendment Bill, currently before Parliament, would grant broad powers for the Government Communications Security Bureau to spy on New Zealanders, while at present their remit extends only to foreign intelligence. This is controversial, and it is widely agreed that the GCSB Amendment Bill constitutes an unusually large imposition of state power. At the 27 July “Stop the GCSB Bill” protest in Wellington, a speaker cited the MSM’s reluctance to cover the GCSB Amendment Bill as one of the barriers to its opponents mobilising against it.

So the GCSB bill is a serious “hard news” topic of major public interest, and recently it has had to contend with “distractions” like the birth of the “Royal Baby” Prince George, and the high-rating talent show X Factor. To see whether the MSM did indeed ignore the GCSB story, I compared nine weeks of New Zealand press, broadcast and internet news coverage of these three issues, comprising almost 5,000 unique media items.* This is a quantitative analysis – no assessments were made about the tone or accuracy or completeness of coverage, or whether it tended to support any ideological position. That’s another project. Here we’re just looking at the media space given to each issue across news media outlets.

This is what I found.

GCSB led by volume, with more than half the coverage. In terms of reach, the Royal Baby was the winner in the end, garnering close to 50% of the total audience due to extensive syndication on commercial radio and television coverage in late July. The GCSB story was much more prevalent in press and low-audience internet media. By either metric, X Factor coverage was the lowest by a considerable distance.

Hamish Fletcher at NZ Herald reports:

Smaller telcos are seething about Government proposals they say would make wholesale copper internet prices artificially high, hinder competition and hurt innovation.

A discussion document released this week by the Communications and Information Technology Minister, Amy Adams, suggests Chorus’ wholesale charges for copper line services should be set between $37.50 and $42.50 a month.

This is up to $10 higher than the Commerce Commission’s proposal last year for monthly wholesale charges and follows complaints from Chorus that if copper prices are too low, it could inhibit the uptake of fibre services being rolled out as part of the Government’s $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband scheme.

Smaller internet retailers which pay these wholesale charges have loudly opposed the Government paper proposals. Slingshot and CallPlus chief executive Mark Callander said the move would keep copper prices artificially high and amounted to a levy to bolster the rollout of fibre lines.

They’re right. Effectively it is a tax on copper. But even worse, the money goes to Chorus. The price of copper lines should be as determined by the Commerce Commission under the Telecommunications Act, not set by Government.

The Herald reported:

Mother of four Michelle Gordon delayed taking her teenage daughter to the doctor for a fortnight as she was unsure how badly she needed help, and because it costs $25.

She now regrets the wait. Jessica, 14, had a chest infection and had been sick for three weeks before seeing the doctor, who prescribed antibiotics.

“We delayed and delayed, thinking she was maybe getting better, then she went downhill and we really needed to go to the doctor,” says Ms Gordon, whose income is the sole parent benefit. …

Ms Gordon pays rent of $360 a week. She receives income of about $700 including the accommodation supplement and full or partial disability allowances for herself (for fibromyalgia), Jordan (Crohn’s disease) and one of her 8-year-old twins, Caleb (for asthma medication).

I often complain that stories don’t provide full information on someone’s income from the Government, so it is worth praising a story that does do that.