Don Brash gave a speech last week outlining ACT’s economic policies. People may be interested in a summary of them:

• ACT would promptly re-introduce youth minimum wages – or better still, abolish minimum wages entirely for those under 20.
• further reform of employment law so it is less heavily stacked against employers
• scrap the Emissions Trading Scheme
• radical reform of the RMA
• seek to reduce government spending to below 30% of GDP, the level it was at at the end of Labour’s second term in office in 2005
• Longer term, as the economy grew, we would want to get the government share of the economy to a lower level, perhaps 25%, as it was for much of our history up to the mid-seventies
• harmonise the top personal, company and trust tax rates at 21%; or
• radically reduce the company tax rate, to perhaps 10 or 15%, with the top personal and trust tax rates remaining at, say, 28%
• age of entitlement for NZ super has to rise gradually over the next 10 years or so
• favours the sale of government-owned businesses
• see legislation passed which would constrain the future growth of government spending
• see legislation passed which would make it harder for governments to pass laws and regulations which would impinge on the rights of citizens
• see the Bill of Rights amended to protect the property rights of citizens

While I don’t agree with every single item, there’s a lot I do agree with, and they would definitely help push New Zealand faster in the right direction.

David Chaston at interest.co.nz writes:

The experts say that without changes – like raising the retirement age – the present system is not sustainable for people who think they are paying into it now.

But the big failure – the really big failure – has been our longterm affection for ‘pay-as-you-go’ systems to fund basic and universal retirement superannuation. Pay-as-you-go approaches only work with positive trending demographics. But we have now converted to negative trending demographics where the proportion of claiming retirees rises and the proportion of working age payers diminishes.

The result will a disaster. People will get hurt.

I’ve said many times – the current super scheme should be locked off and guaranteed for those who reach 65 before say 2025 or even 2030. But a more sustainable scheme that takes account of initiatives such as KiwiSaver should be designed for those retiring after 2025.

Basically, someone who finished high school with the School Certificate qualification in 1962 will be aged 65 in 2011, and eligible for NZ Super.

Statistics NZ has relevant data of earnings and taxes from 1962 and we can use that data to track the earnings in that working life – and from that data determine the taxes paid over that period.

Essentially, our statisically average person will have earned about NZ$1.4 million and paid about NZ$342,000 in tax, taking home a pay packet of a little over NZ$1 million over those 50 years.

Converting these raw earnings and taxes to 2011 dollars, they earned NZ$2.7 million, paid NZ$620,000 in taxes, and had take-home pay of a bit more than NZ$2 million.

However, for the next 20 years of retirement, they will claim in 2011 dollars NZ Super to the value of NZ$544,000 – or almost 88% of all the taxes they have ever paid.

If they live for 30 years in retirement, they will claim almost a third more than they paid in a lifetime of taxes. They ‘break-even’ after 22+ years.

That is a very valuable calculation. The income tax paid by the average retired person will only cover 22 years of super.

That essentialy means someone else has to pay for their lifetime use of all other public services, including their health care needs as they age.

So how do you pay for that? Do you tax the rich pricks?

Even if that other 10+% were taxed at a much higher rate, it is unlikely to generate the funding required to pay for a long-but-normal life in retirement at current NZ Super rates; there are just far too many people about to become retired and eligble for their ‘fair share’.

Nope.

Our only option is to raise the retirement age.

We have left our run too late to adopt a fully-funded approach for people who will retire in the next twenty years. We are stuck with pay-as-you-go over that period.

I agree we need to increase the age. But not just look at that issue. I think we should have a fundamental debate about what should NZ Superannuation look like for those born after 1960. Should it be inflation adjusted or average income adjusted? Should it be income or asset tested? Should there be options such as a smaller amount if you retire earlier and a larger amount if you retire later?

Due to the political necessity to neutralise this issue in 2008, the PM has vowed no changes to super or the age while he is PM. While that means any changes are unlikely to be agreed upon in the next six years, it doesn’t mean political parties can’t start talking about what superannuation should look like for those born after 1960. We can’t afford to delay the decisions by a decade or more, as that won’t give enough time to implement changes.

ACT have announced their list. The number 3 spot is blank for now, as the candidate approved for it has yet to make a final decision on availability. They are not a sitting MP and almost inevitably will be female.

The list is below, along with what % of the vote ACT approximately needs to get them into Parliament (assuming Banks wins Epsom).

1. Don Brash 1.2%
2. John Boscawen 2.0%
3. To be confirmed 2.8%
4. Don Nicolson 3.6%
5. John Banks
6. David Seymour 4.4%
7. Chris Simmons 5.2%
8. Stephen Whittington 6.0%
9. Kath McCabe 6.8%
10. Robyn Stent 7.6%

Nicolson and McCabe are both strong rural voices, and will no doubt target the rural sector and campaign against the ETS. Of course there is no way it will be dumped, unless ACT got a massive proportion of the vote, such as 15%

David and Stephen are both very very bright guys, and first class debaters. I’ve seen Stephen beat many an MP in a debate, and he would be a real force in the debating chamber. Of course ACT would need around 6% to get him in.

Don’t know Chris Simmons really, but he has managed to keep the party organisation intact while the leadership wars occurred, so I guess has proven himself. Robyn Stent has good credentials as the former Health & Disability Commissioner.

The big story is that four of the five current ACT MPs are retiring at the election. One willingly, and three unwillingly. This is very significant, and I think a sign that the party wants an end to the factional infighting of the past.

The other major challenge for ACT is that they need to get in one or more MPs who could become leader after Don, possibly around 2016 or 2017.

This might be the No 3 unnamed candidate, if they agree to stand. Otherwise Nicolson might be a possibility.

The big challenge for ACT is to lift their party vote. On current polls they would get Banks and Brash only. Really at a minimum they need to get 4 MPs and get their No 3 candidate in. Now traditionally they get a better result than the polls have shown, but history is no guarantee of the future.

ACT are announcing their list at 3 pm in Auckland. Act on Campus have set up a live chat facility where they’ll cover the list live. I’ve embedded the facility here so those interested can follow it also.

But this surgery is in a good cause. Sunday News reports:

MP Gareth Hughes will have plastic surgery to repair a badly broken nose, busted while playing for the Parliamentary Rugby XV.

Hughes, the only Green Party MP in the side, suffered the injury on Monday in a game against a Diplomatic Corps XV in Wellington. The match was a warm-up for the Parliamentary World Cup, starting next Sunday.

The broken nose forced him out of yesterday’s game against a West Coast invitational team in Greymouth – won by the Coasters 12-0.

“I got the ball out of a ruck and started charging it up,” Hughes said. “But then I got knocked with some guy’s forearm.

“I went down and an awesome amount of blood came out. I went off to hospital and they said, `Wow, that [nose] is really bent’.” …

Hughes will return to Wellington next week for surgery to straighten his nose.

“I’m out of the World Cup unfortunately,” he said.

“But I will offer to be their water boy.

Hughes suffered cracked ribs in his debut for the Parliamentary World Cup side at Murupara in July.

“But it hasn’t put me off rugby. I will definitely play again when I am fit,” he said.

Good on Gareth for showing some Kiwi guts, and sticking with the game.

John Tamihere writes in the Sunday News:

Labour is now polling on average around 30%.

How did it come to be in such a difficult position? A number of factors ensure it does not present itself as a viable alternative Government.

The first was the takeover of the Labour Party machine by Helen Clark supporters Margaret Wilson, Ruth Dyson and Maryann Street from 1991. The full takeover occurred in 1993 when Clark secured leadership of the Parliamentary Labour team. The control of any party or organisation by one leader ensures new talent will always find it hard to make ground.

Politics is the opposite of normal good practice, where you bring on merit and talent as a survival and succession method.

I’ve noticed there are two sorts of leaders in politics. Those who try to bury potential successors, and those who promote them.

Another factor which can solely be attributed to Clark and her lieutenants was the destruction of any overt, robust, healthy contest of ideas. Instead of debating a cohesive and comprehensive ideology that defined what modern Labour stood for and how it was going to advance and implement that, Clark saw this very necessary conversation as a challenge to her leadership. The notion of left and right-wing factions in the party was done away with.

The Labour Party was broken up into a number of interest groups, in effect powerful lobby groups that chose the lacklustre party list. The interest groups are the women’s division, the gay division, the Pacific Island division, the Maori division – you get the picture.

Labour’s list in 2008 was bold and got in some needed new talent. However their 2011 list is indeed lacklustre.

John Armstrong in NZ Herald writes:

For three years, Phil Goff has tirelessly pushed his boulder Sisyphus-like up the hill, only for it to roll back down each time. Now, however, the rock may have slid down the hill one too many times.

Over the past couple of weeks, cracks have appeared in Labour’s united front, giving National added reason to believe it can secure the electoral equivalent of El Dorado – winning enough seats in an MMP election to govern alone.

Labour’s legendary self-discipline seems to be crumbling under the relentless pressure of bad polls.

I wouldn’t get too fixated about whether National will win enough seats to govern alone. National’s aim is to get around 48% of the vote, not to govern alone. And the margin will close during the campaign.

But what John is correct to note is that for the first time there are significant splits showing in Labour. A number of Labour MPs are now of the view that a change is necessary – basically that any change is better than no change. They can be counted on one hand, but they are now there.

You also have Cunliffe and Jones especially starting to gather supporters for the post-election leadership vote, assuming Labour loses.

Witness the unfortunate outburst from Dunedin South backbencher Clare Curran, flaying the Greens for having the temerity to encroach on territory which apparently belongs to Labour as of right.

Of more serious note, some senior Labour MPs clearly think November’s election is a foregone conclusion, and are now focusing on what happens afterwards leadership-wise, positioning themselves accordingly.

The net effect of this is to leave Phil Goff marooned exactly where National wants him – in an ineffectual limbo with his leadership destabilised, but not so much that he must be removed before the election.

It is a skill to aim to wound, rather than kill. But generally the shots are self-inflicted – not a result of enemy fire.

Most damaging has been the leaking of suggestions that Goff offered to resign as leader during a recent meeting of Labour’s front-bench MPs.

What Goff apparently said was that he had put everything into the job for the past three years, and anyone who wasn’t happy with his performance should stick their hand up. No one did.

The only motive for the leak would be to undermine Goff before the election campaign to ensure he loses.

Or to undermine him, so he can be rolled before the election. Either way it means someone on the Labour front bench is undermining Goff.

Voters’ ratings of his attributes as a leader – as measured by the 3 News poll – have become more unfavourable since he took over from Clark in late 2008.

On the crucial questions of whether he is a capable leader, good in a crisis and having sound judgment, Goff’s initially positive ratings have slumped.

Over the last two year, Goff’s rating as a capable leader has dropped from 53% to 38%, good in a crisis from 51% to 40%, honesty from 45% to 34% and sound judgement from 57% to 42%.

While much is made of the 1951 election as the last time a party won more than 50 per cent of the vote, National has topped 47 per cent in seven of the 22 post-war elections.

It is also worth noting that Labour, in winning a second term in office in 1987, raised its vote from 43 to 48 per cent.

That’s a stat I hadn’t seen before. National got over 47% in 1946 (but still lost), 52% in 1949, 54% in 1951, 48% in 1960, 47% in 1963, 47% in 1966, 48% in 1975, and 48% in 1990.

When the positioning going on within Labour is taken into account, what is happening is that the early stages of the 2014 election campaign are being played out before this year’s one has started.

All rather bizarre, to say the least.

I suppose it allows Labour to say they are forward looking 🙂

A very interesting story in the NZ Herald on a potential miscarriage of justice.

I think far more guilty people get off, than innocent people get convicted. And that is of course how it should be. But most of the high profile murder cases, I think the Police got the right person. The Peter Ellis case is different as I don’t actually think there was any criminal offending in the first place.

But this case does ring alarm bells:

Arthur Easton was fatally stabbed in his Papakura house as he and his six-foot sons fought an intruder.

The boys, aged 16 and 18, described the offender as “a black b******” of about their height. The fatal wounds were delivered by a bayonet which the boys noticed only at the end of the fight and which was in the intruder’s right hand.

It happened about 8pm on 13 October 1985 and Arthur Easton, who was 52, died at the scene.

Three motorists driving nearby reported seeing a Maori or dark-skinned male running in suspicious circumstances.

Police began a search for a strong, tall, right-handed Maori but ended up arresting a shy, asthmatic, 5′ 8″, left-handed, European named Alan Hall from a family not previously known to police.

Okay so why did they arrest him?

But it wasn’t as though there was no evidence against Hall. Two pieces of evidence from the scene a Swiss bayonet and a woollen hat pulled from the offender’s head belonged to Hall. Now 49, Hall volunteered that information to police during a routine neighbourhood doorknock but didn’t help himself by giving inconsistent explanations about what happened to them lost, stolen, thrown out. Hall’s explanation for those inconsistencies is that he was afraid; he’d never before been questioned by the police. The family say they believe the bayonet and hat were stolen from the sleepout earlier, along with cash and other clothing.

Hall’s problems escalated from there. He’d taken a solo walk on the evening of the murder and so had no alibi.

Okay I can see why he was a strong suspect.

There was no blood, not a single hair from the woollen hat or a fingerprint to put Hall at the scene. During the violent struggle, one of the Easton boys clubbed the intruder over the head with a squash racket until the racket broke and yet no one from Hall’s work reported any marks on him next morning.

And neither of the boys identified Hall. They had the impression the intruder was tall and dark-skinned.

Central to the Innocence Project’s petition is what happened to the evidence of three motorists. They separately reported seeing a “Maori” or “dark-skinned” man running in suspicious circumstances from the direction of the Easton property about the time the 111 call was made. But neither the defence, the judge nor jury got to hear this.

Because of their location, it is unlikely the motorists saw the same man but none of the descriptions matched Hall.

None of the fleeing “Maori” sightings were necessarily connected with the killing, but when you consider the two sons also described the offender as dark skinned, that would be some coincidence if none of them were the offender.

Ronald Turner was considered an important witness because the suspicious man he saw was near to where a police dog tracked the intruder.

After hearing a radio report later that night about a murder, Turner rang police and described the person he saw as a “male Maori”. Next day he repeated the description in a written statement adding, that the man kept looking around and ran off down an alleyway.

“When he turned around I could definitely see he was dark skinned, he was not white.”

Police visited Turner again four months later – by which time Hall had become the prime suspect – and pressed Turner about whether he was sure. According to the statement taken that day, Turner said: “I am 100 per cent sure he was a Maori … I do not feel he was a Pakeha, not even a dark skinned one.”

None of these statements made it to court. Instead, the only statement from Turner that police put forward omitted all reference to colour or ethnicity and Turner was not called to give evidence in person.

This raises two questions for me. The first is whether it is proper for the Police to use only part of a witness’ statement. The second is wouldn’t the defence have been given a copy of the full statements from all witnesses, and was the defence counsel not up to the job if he didn’t raise them in court?

Overall, based just on the newspaper report, I have to say that it is hard to say there is not reasonable doubt.

Victoria Robinson at Stuff reports:

A panicked move to throw Serious Fraud Office investigators off the trail has seen a former National MP sentenced for perverting the course of justice.

The irony is that Gilbert Myles committed a crime trying to hide business dealings which in the end were not criminal.

Myles appeared in the Auckland District Court this afternoon to be sentenced before Judge Roderick Joyce QC.

He was given four months’ community detention and 450 hours of volunteer work for obstructing the course of justice.

Judge Joyce said Myles “panicked” when the SFO started investigating him for a complex arrangement involving sellings books and charities – he faked a receipt book to impede the investigation.

“This was an exceedingly stupid thing to do,” the judge said, calling the fake book “amateurish”.

It is often the cover up which does people in.

Myles and his family had to endure the trial and he had never offended before, and was unlikely to again.

A prison sentence was not required for personal deterrance because Myles had already learnt his lesson, the judge said.

A probation report about Myles said he “struggles to come to terms with the finding of wrongdoing” in the case.

The Field problem.  Field also got into arguably more trouble with the cover up than the original offending. And like Myles doesn’t accept covering up was wrong.

Myles was elected to Parliament in 1990 as a National MP, beating Phil Goff in Mt Roskill. He soon defected to set up the Liberal Party which became part of the Alliance. However Myles defected again to NZ First and actually spent most of 1999 in Parliament as a List MP replacing Deborah Morris who resigned.

Has a great night on Friday at the World of Wearable Arts Awards Night. Did dinner at Trade Kitchen before hand who have a special WOW menu where they guarantee two courses in an hour. Then the show and awards which went on for around three hours, followed by cocktails at Foxtail afterwards until around 1 am.

This was the supreme award winner. Photos from Stuff.

The winner of the illumination section.

This lobster outfit was one of my favourites.

Until you have been to a WOW show, you don’t realise how much more than just a fashion show it is. The dancing, the singing, the sets all contribute to a great night just as much as the outfits and models do. It is a real show, in the full sense of the word.

The events centre gets very hot, and it is a long show, so the best investment you can make is a bottle of water to hydrate yourself during the show.

The Herald reports:

Martin Devlin complained about three stories published by the Herald.

The first two reports appeared on the newspaper’s website and the third report was given front-page prominence.

His complaint about unethical journalism traversed several of the Press Council principles, especially a lack of accuracy, fairness and balance; misleading headlines and captions; and misleading readers by the technical manipulation of a photograph.

Parts of his various complaints are upheld. …

More importantly, the Press Council does not accept the argument raised by the newspaper that a Wikipedia definition of “air rage” allows the term to be used to mean the general frustration felt by passengers annoyed by lengthy delays.

It takes the view that “air rage” suggests aggressive behaviour, behaviour exhibiting a loss of control, and there is no evidence of such action in the article. He certainly may have made an ill-considered remark, but there is no suggestion that he became violently angry.

These two complaints about a lack of accuracy and a misleading headline are upheld.

I love how the Herald tried to use a Wikipedia definition as a defence.

Finally, the council turned to Mr Devlin’s overriding contention that he was treated unfairly because the newspaper twisted a minor story into a “front-page extravaganza”.

The council has been loath in the past to delineate the positioning that editors might give to stories, for prominence inevitably depends on transitory factors, such as the relative importance of other news items on any given day.

Furthermore, the Press Council accepts that police escorting such a public figure from a plane, especially given the previous incident, was a valid story for the newspaper to cover.

Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the red headline, the power of “Air rage”, a particularly large photograph, the dominant position on the front page, the three-times-repeated phrasing of “making a scene and being abusive” as well as the details about previous charges, has to be weighed in terms of general fairness.

In short, was this report so sensationalised that it became “overcooked” and thus unfair to Mr Devlin?

On balance, and despite its long-standing reluctance to adjudicate on the placement of stories, the Press Council unanimously agreed that the overall coverage was indeed unfair. This aspect of his complaint is also upheld.

As they said, it is unusual for The Press Council to second guess a newspaper on an issue such as prominence. The fact they unanimously decided to rule it was unfair, suggests they thought that Devlin really had been badly treated.

Having said that, most people manage to get on and off aircraft without upsetting the air crew, and that is one sure fire way to make sure no negative stories appear about you on board planes.

Heh. Hat Tip: Toby Manhire at The Listener

Went with Ukraine Girl to Downstage on Wednesday to see Arthur Meek’s On the Upside-Down of the World.

The first things that strikes you is the set. There are around 40 tall ladders on stage. And somehow they are not leaning against anything, making you wonder what keeps them up. Eventually you work out they are bolted to each other, so they are like a big frame. My mind did start recalling college physics and wondering how much weight would be needed on which ladder to make the whole thing collapse!

While the ladders were not an integral part of the play, for me they worked. It allowed Laurel Devenie’s character of Mary Ann Martin to emphasise her pleasure or distress as she went up or down the ladders.

So who is Mary Ann Martin, and why is there a play about her? She came to New Zealand at the age of 25 in 1842, following her husband William Martin who came out in 1841 to be the first Chief Justice of New Zealand. In fact at the time, the only Justice of New Zealand.

The play has a strongly political theme, as did Martin’s actual life. When she first came to New Zealand she saw Maori as savages to be converted to Christianity and became well regarded by many Maori due to the hospital she set up. But over time the friendly relations with Maori frayed and eventually severed, with the focal point in the play being the son of a Maori chief she fostered as her own.

The land wars of the 1860s severed the Martins not just from Maoridom, but also from most of their European friends, as they though the actions of the then Government was unjust and provocative.

Now some may read this and think the play is just a politically correct rewriting of history which portrays Maori as all good, and settlers as all bad. It doesn’t. The play is based on the actual history of that period, and primarily the book “Our Maoris” written by Mary Ann Martin. It is worth reflecting that the actions of the Government in the 1860s was judged harshly not just by today’s standards, but at the time by the first Chief Justice and his wife.  If you want a short summary of the Taranaki war, Wikipedia has one.

But despite the political overtone, this was not a play about Maori v Pakeha. It was a play about one woman, and her journey. A sole actor play is always a challenge, but I have to say Laurel Devenie not just rose to the challenge, but mastered it. Her performance was so outstanding that she got a rare standing ovation from most of the audience. That’s the first play I’ve attended in some years where that has happened.

The back story to the play is interesting:

She called her book Our Maoris, which today seems a patronising and anachronistic title.

But as director Colin McColl points out, language is fluid and when Lady Martin used the term it was with affection and respect.

Now she has made the journey from book to stage courtesy of playwright/actor Arthur Meek who found a copy of Our Maoris at a second-hand bookstall a couple of summers back.

Meek says its provocative title coupled with its cover picture of “the most depressed looking kuia ever” meant he had to buy it. He expected it would be a dry and possibly depressing read, but instead he found an uplifting story which revealed one of the great pioneers of our colonial history.

Arthur Meek succeeded in turning the book into a play which is equally uplifting.

On Q+A this week: The Spirit Level has been one of the most influential political books of the past decade, even if strictly speaking it’s not about politics. Its thesis: That the gap between rich and poor is making us sicker, sadder and more violent. So with inequality set to become a major election issue, we speak to the author of The Spirit Level, Prof. Richard Wilkinson. Will reducing inequality reduce our other social problems? Or is it more complicated than that? And does such intervention risk stifling entrepreneurship, creativity and individual freedoms?

Then, tens of thousands of tourists will touchdown in New Zealandover the next few weeks, expecting a 100% pure experience. What will they make of our polluted lakes and rivers? Is the farming that drives our economy now putting our prosperity in jeopardy? Is it time to ask more of our farmers? We’ll debate the issue with Federated Farmers President Bruce Wills and Environmental Scientist Mike Joy.

On the panel this week, Political Analyst Dr Claire Robinson is joined by Chief Executive of the Waipareira Trust and former Cabinet minister John Tamihere and Business New Zealand CEO Phil O’Reilly.

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE.  Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 10.10am and 2.10pm Mondays on TVNZ 7       

My column at the NZ Herald is about how today is the start of the Taxpayer Relief Regulated Period.

We are now officially within three months of the general election. Today is the start of what the law calls the regulated period. It restricts how much money political parties can spend of their own money on election advertising, but more popularly cuts off taxpayer funded election advertisements from MPs. …

So if from today you see anything from your MP or from a parliamentary party that has the crest of the House of Representatives on it (indicating Parliament has paid for it), and it is advocating either explicitly or implicitly for or against a party or candidate, then you should send a copy of it to the New Zealand Herald who I am sure will happily inquire to the Parliamentary Service whether the taxpayer is due any refunds.

Only 13 weeks to go until E-day!

Fairfax has announced that it is selling 30% to 35% of Trade Me, and will be listing it on the stock exchange through an initial public offering.

This is great news, and should result in a lot of keen investors.

I await Labour and The Greens insisting that as Trade Me is vital infrastructure due to its near monopoly status, that the Government buy it and turn it into an SOE.

How Labour’s back bench views the world. Carmel Sepuloni, Carol Beaumont and Stewart Nash with Duncan on Labour’s message.Plus Sean with an extended in depth interview with historian James Belich on what it means to be a New Zealander.

Broadcast on TV 3, Saturday 27/08/2011 – 1030, Sunday Edition 28/08/11 0830

 

It’s been a long battle, but great to see this story of New Zealand apples being sold in Sydney.

Jamie Morton at NZ Herald reports:

A coroner has called for compulsory state monitoring of all children until they are 5 – but his hard-line approach has been dismissed as “too much” by Families Commissioner Christine Rankin.

Dr Wallace Bain, of Rotorua, yesterday made several bold recommendations for the Government on tackling child abuse when he issued his findings into the death of local toddler Nia Glassie.

The 3-year-old died of a serious brain injury in 2007 after months of physical abuse at the hands of some of her extended family.

Dr Bain’s proposals include checks on all children aged under 5, compulsory state intervention for single-parent families, mandatory reporting by schools of suspected abuse and, where necessary, compulsory sharing of case information that could breach the Privacy Act.

My instincts are also against compulsory checks on all children aged under 5, but I have to say that if it would save the lives of more infants, then it is worth a debate.