Paul Walker blogs a summary of a new report by Christopher Snowdon on The Proof of the Pudding: Denmark’s fat tax fiasco. The findings are:

• Denmark’s tax on saturated fat was hailed as a world-leading public health policy when it was introduced in October 2011, but it was abandoned fifteen months later when the unintended consequences became clear. This paper examines how a policy went from having almost unanimous parliamentary support to becoming ‘an unbearable burden’ on the Danish people.
• The economic effects of the fat tax were almost invariably negative. It was blamed for helping inflation rise to 4.7 per cent in a year in which real wages fell by 0.8 per cent. Many Danes switched to cheaper brands or went over the border to Sweden and Germany to do their shopping. At least ten per cent of fat tax revenues were swallowed up in administrative costs and it was estimated to have cost 1,300 Danish jobs.
• The fat tax had a very limited impact on the consumption of ‘unhealthy’ foods. One survey found that only seven per cent of the population reduced the amount of butter, cream and cheese they bought and another survey found that 80 per cent of Danes did not change their shopping habits at all.
• The fat tax was always controversial and it became increasingly unpopular as time went on. Objections came not just from business owners, but also from trade unions, politicians, journalists and the general public. It was widely criticised across the political spectrum for making the poor poorer. By October 2012, 70 per cent of Danes considered the tax to be ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ and newspapers routinely described it as ‘infamous’, ‘maligned’ and ‘hated’. Mette Gjerskov, the minister for food, agriculture and fisheries, admitted in late 2012: ‘The fat tax is one of the most criticised policies we have had in a long time.’
• Denmark’s fat tax remains the leading example of an ambitious anti-obesity policy being tested in the real world. The results failed to match the predictions of the health lobby’s computer models and the failed experiment has since been largely swept under the carpet in public health circles. Ultimately, Danish politicians weighed the negligible health benefits against the demonstrable social and economic costs and swiftly abandoned it. Few mourn its passing.
• The economic and political failure of the fat tax provides important lessons for policy-makers who are considering ‘health-related’ taxes on fat, sugar, ‘junk food’ and fizzy drinks in the UK and elsewhere. As other studies have concluded, the effect of such policies on calorie consumption and obesity is likely to be minimal. These taxes are highly regressive, economically inefficient and widely unpopular. Although they remain popular with many health campaigners, this may be because, as one Danish journalist noted, ‘doctors don’t need to get re-elected.’

There are lessons from this regarding all sorts of targeted taxes. They can sound great in theory, but can be a disaster in practice.

Hat Tip: Whale

Bernard Orsman writes in the NZ Herald:

The Auckland Council hasn’t done any work to compare urban and rural infrastructure costs as it asks Aucklanders to adapt to a new way of life that includes a mix of residential intensification and urban sprawl.

The council is commissioning an “Auckland cost-of-growth study” that doesn’t begin until after feedback closes on a new planning rulebook which has huge implications for the city’s urban, rural and coastal environments.

One would have thought you’d commission such a study before you even draft the plan. This strongly suggests to me the plan is based on ideology, not evidence.

Councillor Dick Quax said it was unbelievable that the council was only now seeking evidence that the compact city being promoted was better in terms of infrastructure to “peripheral expansion”.

“I would have expected that before plans are drawn up to change forever the way people in Auckland live … there was some hard evidence to guide council. Sadly this has not happened and is another failure of the draft Unitary Plan,” he said.

I have no doubt there are extra costs with new subdivisions further away from the centre. But what we don’t know, is how much extra cost. For my 2c I think any extra costs should be borne by those deciding to live out there. People should have the choice on where to live – but to get that choice, you need to move the urban-rural boundary.

Dr Blakeley said it was well established that infrastructure costs for new “greenfield” developments were higher than the costs for urban “brownfield” developments. One Sydney study had put greenfield costs at more than twice those of brownfields.

As I said, those costs should be met by developers and home-owners. But give them the choice.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Iwi chief executive Meka Whaitiri will be Labour’s candidate in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election on June 29.

She beat five other challengers for the nomination yesterday, including high-profile broadcaster Shane Taurima.

It will be interesting to see what Taurimia now does. I presume he won’t go back to being an interviewer for Q+A!

Labour is tipped by most commentators to hold the seat in the by-election sparked by the death of Parekura Horomia. He held the seat for 14 years and won in 2011 with a majority of 6541.

Ms Whaitiri was seen by many as his chosen successor. She will be up against Na Raihania from the Maori Party, who came second to Mr Horomia in 2011, Te Hamua Nikora from the Mana Party and the Greens’ Marama Davidson.

It would be a very big surprise for her not to hold the seat.

She was head girl at Karamu High School and played both netball and softball at a national level. Her first job was at the local freezing works.

She went on to complete a masters degree in education from Victoria University, Mr Shearer said.

“Meka has a strong Maori governance background and knowledge of how government and Parliament works.”

She was also a senior adviser to the minister of Maori Affairs and for four years has been chief executive of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.

She appears to have a good background, and should make a good MP. She could end up Maori Affairs Minister if Labour win the next election. Continue reading »

The headline in Stuff was:

Couple’s $800 debt spirals into $70,000

When I saw the headline I thought it was about one of those bottom dwelling scummy companies that charges something like 10% weekly interest or 500% annual interest. How else does a debt increase 875 fold?

I detest those rip off companies. They are exploitative and worse.

But is this story about one of those?

It started with an $800 loan to replace their car tyres. Ten years on, Teresa and Lomitusi Fesuiai owe $70,000 and face having to sell their home to pay their debts.

The lead paragraph makes it seem so. But then in the second paragraph we read:

The Porirua couple say the tyre loan from Finance Now in 2003 was followed by “$1000 here and $1000 there” to cover family events, gifts and other expenses.

So it wasn’t an $800 loan? It was a series of loans. How much?

Early 2003: The Fesuiais get a loan of $819 from Finance Now to replace car tyres. Over the year they get six other loans for family events, gifts and other expenses.

December 2003: Their seventh advance is for a consolidation loan of $18,639 to settle the existing total and a $1000 cash advance.

So over less than a year, almost $20,000 was borrowed. This is a story more about not borrowing large amounts of money.

So if $20,000 was borrowed in a year, I can see how over a decade that can grow to $70,000. What was the interest rate?

By the end of that year, interest rates of more than 17 per cent, insurance and a swag of fees had combined to leave them with a total debt above $34,000.

An interest rate of 17% doesn’t seem too over the top. It is high, but it is a long long way away from the truly exploitative companies. Maybe the insurance and fees were unreasonable – but we have no details on them.

The couple, who both had steady jobs, managed to pay back $23,000 over the next three years. But in 2008 their loan was transferred to debt collection agency Southern Receivables.

It is very sad for them, and they seem like a nice hard working family who made a bad mistake. But I’m still not sure where the finance company is to blame if their interest rate was only 17%.

In 2011, on advice of a local lawyer, they took Finance Now and Southern Receivables to court, claiming the loan contracts were “unjustly burdensome”, and seeking damages and costs.

But they were almost “laughed out of the courtroom”, Mrs Fesuiai said.

“The company’s lawyers were drawing in their books, the judge was almost asleep. This lawyer just wasn’t up to standard – we didn’t have a hope in hell.”

The court found in favour of the two companies, and ordered the Fesuiais to pay costs of more than $40,000.

Wouldn’t it have been better to spend $40,000 on paying the debt off, than going to court? If the interest rate was only 17% then I am not surprised the court did not find it unjustly burdensome.

They now live in hope that someone will buy their house in Ranui Heights so they can clear the debt. The Rose St property has a $250,000 RV. They still owe $120,000 on the mortgage.

“We have no choice,” Mrs Fesuiai said.

“Our kids have grown up here, we have raised our family here. But we will have to make memories somewhere else now.”

She admitted they had borrowed beyond their means, but bad financial and legal advice had compounded their problems and turned the past decade into hell.

It is a sad case. But the lesson is don’t borrow money for day to day spending unless absolutely necessary, and don’t go to court unless you are very confident of the outcome.

“I tell the kids now, if they don’t have any money for something, don’t get a loan. Just save up for it instead.”

Generally good advice. I wouldn’t say never  get a loan, but if you do make sure you have a repayment schedule that you can comfortably meet.

June 2007: On advice from a local community law group, they stop paying the loans and tell Finance Now in writing it has become “burdensome”.

Not sure that was the best advice.

Winston’s recent attack on Chinese immigrants was appalling. He takes a few cherry picked examples and portrays an entire race as being bad for New Zealand. Vernon Small summarises:

Despite his disclaimers that his party was not anti-immigration, you could not read the speech and miss the message: Chinese immigrants (or at least a demonised subset of them) drive up house prices, stretch infrastructure to breaking point, break the law, access health and superannuation they have not paid for, and import corruption and depravity.

We actually have an immigration policy that is blind to people’s race and ethnicity – which is how it should be. With the exception of a small quota for the Pacific, immigrants are not judged on their race or ethnicity. That is as it should be. It is appalling to judge someone not as an individual, but based on their race. That is why immigration decisions are based on skills, work offers, education, assets, family status etc. There will always be changes we can make to our immigration settings but I absolutely reject Winston’s approach of pilloring Chinese immigrants.

In his speech he had a few “horror” stories about some Chinese businessmen building a brothel, and Chinese tourists who like to gamble etc.

What Winston will never tell you is that overall Chinese New Zealanders commit far far fewer crimes than other New Zealanders, and contribute highly to the economy.

People may be surprised by how significant the difference is in crime rates, by ethnicity. These graphs are based on Stats NZ data from the Police. It is the number of apprehensions for each ethnicity, per 10,000 population.

Let’s look at the overall offending rate.

Yes the Asian crime rate is 52 apprehensions per 10,000 population. Caucasians are five times higher at 254, Pacific 10 times higher at 545 and Maori sadly at around 25 times the rate at 1,240.

Maybe Winston will just claim that the problem is the Asian criminals are much smarter than the other criminals, so don’t get caught as much!

The overall crime rate is not a very useful figure, so I also thought I’d look at four common and penacious categories. The worse tends to be violent and sexual crimes and as you can see the Asian rate for violent crimes is less than a third of caucasions and one seventh of the overall violent crime rate.

The sexual crime rate also relatively very low.

And when it comes to robberies, the rate is one twenty fifth of the overall NZ rate.

And for burglaries, the rate is one fortieth the overall NZ rate!

So the next time Winston goes on about how Chinese immigration is turning Auckland into a city of sin, remind him how crime is a sin – and that his xenophobic scaremongering is repugnant.

iSentia do media monitoring in the Asia-Pacific. They have blogged the most mentioned issues in NZ in April 2013. They are:

1. NZ drought 4,892
2. Boston Marathon bombing 3,964
3. Mighty River Power 3,031
4. North Korea nuclear threat 2,642
5. Marriage Amendment Bill 2,546

I wonder what May will be? The London killing? The Budget? Don’t seem to have had as many big issues this month.

Two polls out tonight. They both have National able to form a Government on 49% on TV1 and 47% on TV3. Halfway through the second term, and the same month as NZ’s first asset sale in 14 years – that’s a great result.

Last month TV1 had National at 43% and TV3 on 49%. This month they are broadly agreeing, but of course are showing different trends.

For my money what I think is significant is that in the TV1 poll, both Labour and Greens dropped. This indicate that Greens have lost support to Labour (as Green voters do not swap to National) but in turn Labour is losing even more voters to National.

A policy that promises lower power prices will always be superficially popular, but I think it is a huge strategic mistake as it has Labour competing with the Greens on the left, rather than in the centre. This is not just in their power policy – but across many portfolios – almost all their policies are a lurch to the left of what Clark/Cullen did in Government.  Long may they keep it up!

Michael Laws writes in the SST:

In the wake of the Government’s commonsense decision to allow opencast coal mining on the Denniston Plateau, it was no surprise that the greenie lobby would scream betrayal.

The mining will occur on conservation land – a title that means not much except that no-one lives there, and no-one wants to.

The mine will occupy less than 5 per cent of the total Denniston conservation area, which doesn’t have national park status.

More importantly, the approval granted to Australian miners Bathurst Resources will create more than 400 jobs, rejuvenate an emaciated economy and add some extraneous conservation measures like a 35-kilometre predator fence. In short, it’s a win-win.

Not so, shouts the green faction – supported by the Labour Party nay-sayers. The latter are simply in anti mode – the psychological pit that you can get into when in opposition for too long. In government, they would have done this deal in a heartbeat.

They call out for jobs, yet have opposed pretty much every job creation project in the last four and a half years.

No, the real saboteurs here – the real betrayers – are the environmentalists. For too long their selfish sentiments have robbed New Zealanders of projects and jobs.

Their only answer is that huge sectors of New Zealand should stay as they are because they have always been like that. They oppose any and all extractive industries – from coal to oil to mining – anything that has the potential to endanger their utopian nothingness.

Indeed, the pervasive theme that emanated from the Denniston greenies this past week – including the increasingly hysterical Forest and Bird Society – is that coal is bad. Evil, even.

This mine could have been located in an industrial wasteland – they still would have objected.

That is a key point. They are not opposed to mining in certain areas. They oppose mining everywhere and anywhere. They have a quasi-religious belief that it is wrong to extract minerals from the Earth.

In fact, the quality of the Denniston product is amazing. Even at the current depressed prices, the project makes financial sense to Bathurst Resources because of that quality. Most of it will go straight to China – to fuel its staggering growth and provide energy for its latest power station and steel developments.

For the greenies to try to halt China’s almost linear expansion, by trying to derail this West Coast project, makes King Canute look like a veritable sage by comparison.

The coast has been mining high quality coal for well over a century – if it doesn’t provide such fuel, then another country and economy will.

Meanwhile, there will be a shiver of upset in some urban liberal quarters that such mining occurs. Their best collective idea is not to export coal – but to export Kiwis. To any economy that offers jobs, because neither the West Coast – nor New Zealand for that matter – offers sufficient skilled manual work.

So the greenies will do what their Pavlovian urges demand. They will clog the courts with their useless petitions to try to delay, obfuscate and upset. Knowing that they don’t have any legal chance of upsetting Conservation Minister Nick Smith’s decision.

They will even parade New Zealand overseas as some sort of environmental pariah.

And that is sabotage of the worst sort – if they can’t get their way then they will attempt to bring the whole house down. They must be condemned as the irrational zealots that they are.

The challenge for those opposed to mining at Denniston, is can they point to a single mine in NZ that they do support?

Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

I am not sure MP Nanaia Mahuta is the ideal flag-bearer for Kiwi mums struggling to manage babies in the modern-day workplace. Her call to Speaker David Carter for a more mum-friendly Parliament presents itself as a poorly executed political stunt rather than a serious attempt to shine a light on the plight of working mothers.

Mahuta complained, saying she was “forced” to attend a late-night Budget debate with her 5-month-old daughter but had to leave before the vote because her daughter started crying.

She complained to Speaker Carter, declaring: “No child should be in the workplace from nine ’til midnight”. Mahuta is exactly right. Babies at night should be tucked up nice and warm in bed. They certainly shouldn’t be sitting in Parliament.

But her complaint to Speaker Carter is grandstanding and false. Mahuta’s workplace is already the most flexible on the planet. It’s not the Dickensian workhouse that she portrays. There is absolutely no need nor requirement for a mum to be with her baby in the debating chamber until midnight.

Or at any other time.

Not one of Labour’s 33 MPs was required by Parliament’s rules to be in Parliament that night. The only requirement is for a presiding officer and a Government Minister. Two MPs on their own can conduct the business of the House.

And even if you take voting numbers into account:

But even to debate and to vote requires only one Labour MP. There was no necessity under the rules of Parliament for any other Labour MP to be present.

Thirty-two of them could have been home tucked up in bed sound asleep. And still Labour’s opposition would be both duly noted and recorded.

That’s why Mahuta’s complaint is precious. There’s no other workplace where the business can carry on with a 97 per cent absenteeism. Indeed, with that many away Parliament’s business would have been conducted most expeditiously.

It’s true the sole MP would not have been able to vote the full 33 Labour votes against. To do that 75 per cent of Labour’s MPs must be present in the Parliament complex. But note: it’s only in the complex. Only one MP is required to be in the House to vote and to debate. The other 23 can be in their offices snoozing and looking after baby in her cot. Nine Labour MPs could be at home, including with baby, and still Labour would be able to vote full strength.

It was a beat up, directed at the Labour Whips.

It’s wrong for Mahuta to present herself as a mother balancing work and a new baby under such rules. It shows she’s out of touch with the reality of working mums.

It’s also wrong for her to imply that Parliament’s rules forced her with her baby into the Chamber that Friday night. They didn’t. If there was any forcing it would have been by the Labour whips. They control and dictate who among Labour’s caucus must be within the Parliamentary complex and who must attend the debating chamber. It’s not the Speaker’s nor Parliament’s rules.

Mahuta’s complaint is a political stunt. It makes a mockery of how tough it is for mums in the actual workforce.

A fair point. It is I am sure damn hard being an MP and a parent. But not because you have to had your kid with you in the debating chamber. You don’t.

The HoS reports:

National Party members are pushing for a new “waka-jumping” law to force rogue list MPs out of Parliament.

Delegates at the party’s northern regional convention yesterday voted to ask the Government for the law.

Former NZ First MP Brendan Horan is the only MP who would be affected but National Party members were spooked this month by fears that disgraced junior list MP Aaron Gilmore would stay in Parliament against party wishes.

The problem with a waka jumping law is that it makes a party leader very powerful. They can sack a List MP who angers them. They could use such a law to stay leader by sacking MPs planning to vote for an alternate leader. It also can be misused in a situation where a party splits in two on philosophical grounds as the Alliance did in 2002.

Cherie Howie at HoS reports:

Foreign workers are being targeted for more than 500 visual-effects jobs for the production of the next mega-movie inThe Hobbit series.

Wellington-based special-effects giant Weta Digital, co-owned by Sir Peter Jackson, has asked Immigration New Zealand for approval in principle to outsource 526 positions.

Weta says most are just extensions to visas that are about to expire and the company has a great record of hiring Kiwis, but Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly is questioning the company’s commitment to the local industry.

Apart from ads on the company website, she could not find evidence Weta had let Kiwis know opportunities were available, and questioned why another application was being made when Weta asked for 369 temporary work visas last year.

“They’ve done very little to bridge that gap. They don’t want to invest in (our) people.”

But Weta general manager Tom Greally said the company had proved its commitment to this country – 70 per cent of its 1,100-strong workforce were New Zealand citizens or residents. The temporary work visas were for roles that would be spilt between about 140 new employees and 250 people who were already working for the company, but who needed new visas.

Weta’s created 1,100 jobs and the CTU attacks them for it. Their sin I suspect is that few of their employees are union members.

Of course some of their highly specialised jobs can’t be filled by NZers, but you know what – a huge proportion of the people who come to Wellington to work for Weta decide to stay on and live here permanently. They’re a great attractor of global talent.

Andrea Vance profiles Simon Lusk:

Simon Lusk is one of the most intriguing figures in politics. The arch political fixer shuns the limelight, rarely venturing from his home in Havelock North to Wellington. He maintains a strict silence about his clients – mostly wannabe National MPs. …

Certainly, Labour are fixated on this Right-wing bogeyman. Last year, the party’s chief whip Chris Hipkins lodged 259 written questions of ministers, asking about their communication with Mr Lusk.

And what were the results of that great fishing expedition? Nothing. What a waste of money.

Some believe he is a Whaleoil alter-ego – regularly penning posts for Cameron Slater’s Right-wing blog. Others say he is close to Cabinet minister Judith Collins, and the pillar of a triumvirate of Nasty Nats, including Slater and pollster and Kiwiblog founder David Farrar.

Woo hoo, we are a triumvirate. Are we based on the first triumvirate or the second triumvirate? I’m not sure which one I’d prefer – probably the second as they got to proscribe their enemies 🙂

In the flesh, Mr Lusk, 40, is disappointingly un-evil. There’s no maniacal laugh or sophisticated spinning, just a man who drives a ute and dotes on his three dogs, Bruce, Lucy and Mabo. He is punctilious and very serious, absorbed with politics and fixated on going fishing and hunting.

Mr Lusk doesn’t make his money through politics – but is reluctant to say what he actually does.

“I contract part-time to a number of long-term clients . . . my background is strategy and marketing.”

One such firm is based in the British Virgin Islands. Friends say he works odd hours, so that he can devote large amounts of his spare time to his two passions: politics and hunting.

He spends “two to three hours” a day reading political literature from the US “looking for knowledge that can be applied here”.

Simon is very focused, and more so on fishing and hunting.

“Political parties always need people who are willing to upset the status quo . . . As to nastiness, I am temperamentally unable to be as nasty as some of the Labour Party.”

Heh, a great quote – and so true.

“Currently, I am not doing anything for National, but pragmatism dictates if they were to ask I would likely accept contracts where I could be useful.”

He says he prefers to work for individuals – and only those on the Centre-Right.

“Many on the Left lack grace and I find it hard to deal with people who lack grace.”

And some tips:

He won’t divulge details but Simon Lusk is said to have won four electorate campaign races in 2008, and three in 2011. Some of his tips include:

“Start with a good candidate. Politics is hard enough without a good candidate . . . Preparation is crucial and the best candidate [is] willing to do the most work.”

“I am thorough in documenting every campaign and the lessons learned . . . Predicting trends is a crucial part of my business.”

“The simple rule is that it is possible to overturn a majority of about 6500 in a single election, although this is entirely dependent on having a good candidate.”

“Local government is a fine training ground for candidates, and is used very effectively by National’s opponents.”

The entire article is an interesting read.

The Herald reports:

New South Wales police have created and fired two 3D-printed firearms, the state police commissioner Andrew Scipione revealed in a press conference today.

The police used the Liberator pistol blueprints produced by US-firm Defense Distributed, printing out the weapon using a AU$1700 desktop 3D printer and AU$35 of materials, Computer World reported.

“The results of the demonstration were disturbing and our worst fears were realised because it showed the effect it can have on the gun handler and the victim,” Scipione said in a statement.

He said the guns do not have any of the safety standards, quality control or protection for the user that commercially-produced firearms have.

“The message goes out to anyone with the resources to purchase a 3D printer.

Don’t attempt to use a 3D printer to produce a weapon. A 3D-printed gun is not potentially dangerous, it is dangerous.”

I doubt that will stop people. I suspect the ability to make your own gun will be popular with many. Also as time goes on, the designs will improve and be safer.

I don’t say that is a good thing. But it will happen.

Scipione said 3D printing technology has many positive uses, including medical, scientific and industrial applications, and should be “encouraged, embraced and harnessed to do good, not evil”.

“3D guns are made of thermo-plastic or synthetic material which makes them undetectable in airport X-ray machines. The terrorism implications of such a weapon are huge,” the Commissioner said.

“3D guns are undetectable, untraceable and easy to manufacture.”

The answer may be less reliance on x-rays and more armed guards on planes.

John Roughan writes in NZ Herald:

The little church basement where the Campbells Bay Community Association holds thinly attended public meetings was packed on Tuesday night. People were polite to the Auckland planners and patient with the deceptive language that planning employs.

A man at the back, English by his accent, lost his composure when it was confirmed that three-storey apartments could be built on either side of him and he would have no right to object. The rest of us absorbed the news quietly, as New Zealanders do.

Just about all our properties were zoned for this prospect on a map projected on a screen at the front of the room. Mine was in a strip designated a special environmental area, which appears to mean the trees could prevent multi-unit developments, but most were not so fortunate.

The man with the English accent declared that he was going to sell to a developer as soon as he could, in case his neighbours did so. …

I haven’t seen real suburban unrest before. This isn’t a “rates revolt” where people come to public meetings and sound off about an additional hundred dollars as though it matters. There is a deathly quiet about this plan.

The impact of higher rates is tough on people, but not devastating. Losing your view and being forced out of your family home does instill as Roughan says, a deathly quiet.

The debate over the containment of Auckland’s sprawl appeared to be about whether the bulk of the additional population projected by 2040 could be accommodated in suburbs that have a railway station.

I’ve been criticising this notion for years, arguing that people come to Auckland primarily for its climate and coastal attractions and that planners who want to reshape the city to support public transport are swimming against the tide.

The Unitary Plan was designed by town planners for town planners. It is of huge benefit for them and for the Council as an institution. But not so much for actual Aucklanders.

The mayor has stressed that the plan is a draft and will be changed, but it would be dangerous to rely on that. It is the careful and deliberate work of members of a profession who believe fervently in what they do.

They have been producing this sort of scheme for a blessedly powerless regional body for the past 40 years. They knew that every time a council tried to impose their desired densities on a place such as Panmure, the residents rebelled. But they persevered, convinced that urban planning should not be led by the plain preferences of ordinary people.

Nimbys, they call us. We prefer that our backyard not be overlooked and shaded by apartment blocks next door. If that is too much to ask of Auckland’s planners then I think the rumbling in the suburbs is going to become an eruption that will have its way.

An eruption. Words that may well come true.

The Herald reports:

A misguided health and safety culture is threatening to render children’s play meaningless, early childhood providers are to be warned.

The United Kingdom-based founder of Outdoor Play and Learning (Opal), Michael Follett, says a “policy of fear” has reshaped play to the extent that children are losing out on vital learning.

“You are taking away their ability to learn through primary, first-hand experience, which is how children actually learn.

“They need to fall over, they need to cut themselves, have bumps and bruises.

“If you over-protect, they don’t learn resilience.”

So very true.

Mr Follett, who is a board member of advocacy group Play England, said the situation in the UK had become ridiculous.

“People are saying tree roots are dangerous … “

As a father of three, he said, he understood nobody wanted to see children hurt.

“Some of the health and safety stuff came from a genuine response to children getting killed and seriously hurt, and that is very sensible. But what’s not sensible is the idea that you can eliminate risk.”

The focus should be on the high end stuff. I think you need a resource consent today to build a tree hut!

Stuff has a profile of Paula Bennett. Extracts:

Her conference speech had just outlined the Children’s Action Plan – a piece of work that Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills calls the greatest focus on child abuse since 1989, and the piece de resistance of Bennett’s tenure so far as the country’s welfare kingpin. …

Next stop is Work and Income’s Manukau office. The 10 people waiting in stacker chairs by the door show no interest as Bennett breezes past. They clearly have no idea who she is. Or maybe they just have more pressing worries.

She parks up behind the reception desk and greets a woman with a baby with a cheerful “good morning”. She’s undeniably good with people. She seems genuinely interested and there’s no supercilious talking down. And why would there be? She has been that young mum with a stroller asking about her benefit.

Raised with two brothers in a roundly middle class family, Bennett is no longer sure whether getting pregnant at 17 was a conscious choice – a continuation of the smoking, drinking, truanting, protesting rebellion that marked her teenage years. “I don’t know if I got in with the wrong crowd – that seems so cliched really. Some would argue I led the wrong crowd, given half a chance,” she says with a trademark cackle.

But she does remember what shook her out of a “lonely, scary, frustrating” life of welfare dependency in which a future was hard to see. It was the school holidays and she was looking after daughter Ana and a friend’s children. Her two-bedroom unit was “an absolute disaster zone”.

“Someone knocked at the door. It was someone I had known from school who had been away and come back and I just remember standing there in my pyjamas with this house that was an absolute bombsite and imagining how I looked through their eyes. I just went ‘This is it. This is actually my reality unless I do something about it.’ I do remember that being quite a moment of reflection and change.”

An interesting profile.

Stuff reports:

Economist Ganesh Nana wants the Reserve Bank to intervene in foreign exchange markets for as long as it takes to bring the kiwi dollar down.

The Berl economist told deer farmers in Wellington the bank should become a daily trader till the exchange rate fell to “something sensible for our export sector”.

The dollar has traded close to US86c recently, falling to almost US80c this week, before rebounding to about US80.9c yesterday.

“Sooner or later the speculators – Japanese housewives and Belgian dentists – will find somewhere else to play.”

That may be one of the most risky and/or stupid strategies I have ever seen. In fact the more a Government intervenes in a currency, the greater the profits are for those speculating against it.

I can think of several countries that have tried that strategy – and all have lost.

The reason why they played in New Zealand was because they knew it was an easy win.

Asked if New Zealand had the resources to do this, Nana replied, “It’s called a printing press. I’m not kidding,” he said to laughter.

“You can afford it. The Government has the legal right to print as much dollars as it likes.”

The Green Party policy. Just print as much money as possible.

It certainly would lower the dollar.

It will also increase prices and bring  back rampant inflation.

Winston has proclaimed:

John Key and his ministers have made it clear that our future lies with the Peoples’ Republic of China. …

The Government is talking of a million more people in Auckland soon and there is no prize for guessing where most of them will come from.

It’s the Yellow Peril!

But to this government it’s a great chance to bring in rich Chinese tourists through a half-baked – fast track, special treatment visa scheme.

Not available to you or any other nation.

Absolute lies. Scores of countries do not need any visa whatsoever. The only scheme in place for China is allowing airlines (including Air NZ) to use frequent flyer status as a proxy for a certified bank statement.

And when the so-called rich tourists have finished at the blackjack tables or the pokie machines there’s another attraction nearby.

If Winston is suddenly against gambling, why then as Minister of Racing did he double taxpayer support for racing – one of the most destructive forms of gambling.

The Hong Kong born Chow brothers are thoughtfully providing a fifteen storey brothel, in what used to be an historic building, just across the road from the casino in the heart of Auckland!

Those evil Chinese – also building brothels. There were none in Auckland of course before the Chinese got here.

One concerned citizen sent me a copy of that scurrilous magazine Truth.

It’s chocker with page after page of sex ads – most based in this fair city.

Is that what you voted for?

Whale Oil will be pleased Winston reads Truth. As far as I know Truth has had sex ads in it for 40 years or so. Blaming it on the Government or the Chinese is rather pathetic, but probably lapped up the a few dottery people.

This is a word cloud of Winston’s speech. To think he was once Foreign Minister!

Of course some Chinese immigrants are criminals, are involved in the sex trade etc etc. But Winston cherry picks a few horror stories to effectively demonise several hundred thousand New Zealanders. No mention of the fact Asian crime rates are far far less than other ethnicities. No mention of the fact their educational achievements are way higher than other groups. No mention of the fact they tend to have a lower unemployment rate etc.

It’s classic old Winston. Find a group and make them the scapegoat for everything wrong in society.

The Dom Post reports:

The national tourism agency has successfully defended a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority laid by Fiji-based sustainable transport researcher Peter Nuttall, which was not upheld.

Mr Nuttall laid the complaint in March and said New Zealand could be the most pristine environment in the world.

“But it ain’t. Instead, we are saddled with short-term, narrow-focused profit-driven free marketeers more interested in spin-doctoring a myth to the world,” he said.

Takes a special kind of person to try and sabotage his own country’s tourism campaign. No wonder he lives in Fiji.

His complaint was backed by controversial freshwater scientist Mike Joy, who made headlines in November when he questioned the integrity of 100% Pure.

You’re either being malicious, or a moron, if you take a slogan as a literal statement of fact.

I look forward to the Greens and their supporters complaining about the following slogans also:

• Arkansas – The Natural State; how dare they claim to be natural when they have cities
• Idaho – great Potatoes, Tasty Destinations; where is the peer reviewed evidence their potatoes are great?
• Iowa – is this heaven?; a blatant false statement
• Michigan – Pure Michigan; Will Nuttall and Joy complain about Michigan also?
• Vermont, naturally; Another hideous false claim as they also have cities
• Pure Russia; I suggest they complain in person to Mr Putin
• Switzerland Get Natural; Gnomes are not natural
• Maldives: Always Natural; Clearly false

I wonder if those other countries have to put up with the same idiocy?

An exclusive by Alexander Bisley with Masha Gessen:

AB: On stage at the Auckland Writers & Readers Festival earlier this afternoon (Sunday, May 19) you said in response to the risk you face for courageously criticising Putin: “That’s my least favourite question. When I was working on the biography, I kept it secret. My partner she knew, my editor, no one else knew I was working on it. When the book came out to a great deal of publicity throughout the West, I think it gave me some kind of protection. It sounds horrible, but the death of Anna Politkovskaya taught the Kremlin that the cost of killing high-profile critics in the West is extremely high… There are journalists and other people in much greater danger than I am precisely because the eyes of the world aren’t on them. Because nobody knows their names.” You told Kim Hill yesterday your son’s going to boarding school in America this year because of the significant risk to his safety?

MG: And I’ll probably join him soon. We’ll probably go to New York. I haven’t said that in 20 years. Last year I was in Sydney and my answer to this question was, “This is my home, Putin can leave. I’m staying.” I can do the work in Russia, and I would do the work in Russia, but I have three kids and it’s one thing to bring up your kids in a place that’s risky and difficult; I think in many ways it’s enriching them, and I’m glad my kids have that experience. It’s another thing to bring up your kids in a place that’s hopeless. Now that I’ve lost hope, I need to take them out.

This story has been picked up by Slate, The Guardian etc.

AB: You describe Putin as a “bloody executioner,” saying he’s created the climate where it’s open season on journalists and opposition politicians and dissidents. On March 4, 2012, his “re-election” night, Putin cried: “We showed that no one could impose anything on us.” How do you think he’s going to respond to growing opposition? Will he crackdown harder?

MG: I think at this point they’ve set in motion just this unstoppable countdown machine. He’s going to turn the screws tighter and tighter. That brings more and more pressure on the people—it’ll ultimately explode, the longer it goes on the more violent it will be and also less the likelihood of a good outcome of something good coming afterwards. The worse life is and the less hope there is, the more people leave [Russia].

Putin has been genuinely popular in the past, but there is a growing dissent to his rule, and as reported the more he tries to repress criticism, the more intense it may become.

The interview is a very interesting insight into Russia and Putin, especially the story of when she was summoned to meet him.

Greg Ansley at NZ Herald reports:

Unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent set to rise with more job losses in manufacturing sector Ford’s decision to shut down its production lines in Australia at the cost of thousands of jobs across the automotive industry has dealt another heavy blow to Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s ailing minority Government.

Although Ford’s exit has long been expected after 20 years of declining fortunes for the industry, the disappearance of its iconic Falcon is not only a heavy blow to the national psyche but will also further undermine voter perceptions of Labor’s economic credentials.

Ford’s announcement comes a week after a federal budget marked by major spending cuts and expectations of continued deficits, driving down consumer confidence and placing employment squarely in the spotlight for the September 14 election.

Luke Malpass wrote at Stuff how Australia is not living within its means:

A regular question in New Zealand and Australia is whether our respective nations succeed because of, or in spite of, our politicians.

As both nations’ Budgets were read this week, it was a story of two countries that have faced a vastly different set of circumstances over the past five years, and the choices both have made in light of that.

In 2008, Australia had a mining boom, rising wages and no debt. Its government had delivered consistent surpluses, tax cuts and targeted cash payments to targeted voter groups. Growth was assumed and household wealth doubled during the Howard years. It even avoided recession.

In contrast, New Zealand was lurching into debt, had a collapsed non- bank finance sector, a tradeables sector that had been squeezed for several years, a real recession in advance of the global recession, and a structural deficit

So when Finance Minister Bill English announced last Thursday that New Zealand is on track to record a budget surplus (albeit tiny) in 2014-15, it stood in stark contrast to Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan announcing his sixth budget deficit.

Unfortunately for Mr Swan, he had been promising a surplus for 2013 since 2009, and last year he announced “four years of surpluses” to begin this year. So his staggering A$19.4 billion deficit, with years of deficits ahead, was quite incomprehensible.

And recall how certain parties attacked every single act of spending restraint done by the Government over the last four and a half years.

Since Mr Swan has taken over as treasurer, tax revenue has increased by roughly the equivalent of New Zealand’s entire budget. Unfortunately, he and prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard spent all of the increase plus some, and are miffed because revenue did not increase at an even higher rate.

Yep. While NZ Labour’s plan are to bring in some new taxes, and hike spending.

Budgets are ultimately about choices. The Australian Government chose to run it close to the wind, increasing spending by as much as the most optimistic revenue forecasts would allow.

New Zealand made a very different and far more difficult set of choices. In 2008 the issues were obvious: productivity growth was poor, taxes too high – particularly at a relatively modest level of income – and the tax system had little internal integrity.

Government was chomping its way through far too much of the national pie, crowding out private sector activity.

One important thing the New Zealand Government has done is tamp down expectations of spending increases, concentrating on core activities and not using government as a vehicle to give handouts to partisan coalitions of voter groups.

In fact much of the extra spending by National has gone in areas where there are not high pressure lobby groups demanding more money for themselves, but in areas that will promote economic growth such as tourism and science.

But there are still worrying signs. Both New Zealand and Australia have superannuation burdens set to grow immensely, and health and welfare spending continues to outstrip the ability of society to pay in the long term.

Yep. They will be the big challenges for the future.