Have house prices peaked?

Interest.co.nz reports:

Median house prices declined in Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga in February, according to the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand.

Although the price declines were small, combined with a big drop in the number of homes being sold and a rise in the volume of unsold stock on the market, the outlook for the housing market over the rest of the summer selling season looks weak.

In Auckland the median selling price was $800,000 in February, which means it has declined for four consecutive months since it peaked at $868,000 in October (see chart below). Over that period, the Auckland median is down $68,000, or 7.8%.

Until we’ve had a full year, I would not rush to conclusions. But the data to date does suggest finally house prices may be stabilising, which would be good.

Fake free range eggs

A great investigation by Newsroom:

A Newsroom investigation has revealed that millions of free range eggs sold at Countdown before this year were likely to have been laid by caged hens.

They were packaged as Palace Poultry brand free range eggs laid at a South Auckland farm, but Newsroom’s Morgan Tait and Melanie Reid reveal a large quantity are from caged egg suppliers.

The Serious Fraud Office is investigating. …

Stocked in about 70 Countdown stores in the upper North Island, the small print on the Palace Poultry cartons says the eggs are “produced, graded and distributed by Ararimu Free Range Poultry” in Steels Road, Ararimu, South Auckland.

However, a Newsroom investigation has found more than half of the eggs in the pale yellow cartons were not produced at the Palace Poultry farm in Ararimu.

Instead, it would appear Countdown customers have been buying caged eggs in free range cartons.

If correct, this is indeed fraud. Worth reading the full story that shows a lot of hard work getting and verifying this story.

Poll on abortion

Curia did polling in January for ALRANZ to ascertain views of New Zealanders on whether abortion should be legal in different circumstances.  I thought the results were very interesting with the net level of support (those saying legal less those saying illegal) for each situation being:

  • Pregnant woman likely to die +72%
  • Foetus has no chance of survival +70%
  • Pregnant woman likely to be permanently harmed +70%
  • Pregnancy is a result of rape +65%
  • Pregnancy is a result of birth control failure +31%
  • Pregnant mother can’t afford to have another child +27%
  • Pregnant woman doesn’t want to be a mother +22%

Yardley on Christchurch politics

Mike Yardley writes:

Is it just me or do Cr Raf Manji’s grand designs on Ilam strike you as an expedition of political folly?

First, it was the Green Party’s David Lee, a Wellington City councillor, who startled the horses with his oddball plans to remain residing in Wellington – even if he wins Ilam. No wonder this political goof isn’t on the Green Party list.

At least Cr Manji lives and breathes in the electorate he aspires to represent. But despite all his rhetoric about Christchurch desiring “collaborative, inclusive leadership”, Manji will set his sights on conquering Ilam as a one-man-band, a lone-pony independent candidate. …

Manji also downplayed the need to electioneer in Ilam, signalling he won’t do any campaigning until at least August. “Let’s do it in a short, sharp way – a couple of weeks, bang.” 

I tell candidates who want to win a seat that if they are seriously they should look at campaigning fulltime for six months, preferably nine or more. Not two weeks.

Two years ago, he conceded to me that he wasn’t enjoying his council role. I suspect boredom has given rise to this flight of fancy in Ilam. But it’s rather impertinent and erratic to chase a new political toy just six months after being voted back onto council.

Given his burning ambition to be the “parliamentary voice of the Christchurch story”, why did Raf bother standing for re-election at all?

A fair question.

Guest Post: Stats, Drugs, and Rock and Roll

A guest post by KevinNZ:

Note: Apart from alcohol and peanuts, the substances mentioned are illegal and carry with them maximum sentences of imprisonment. Nothing said in this post should be taken as promoting drug use in any way or in any form. Just because you think that a drug shoud be legalized doesn’t mean you can/should use it. Needless to say drugs are dangerous and can cause harm and even death.

Imagine you’re at a party and for whatever reason it’s your job to hand out, “stuff”. Someone rocks up and asks for whatever you got. You can give him anything you want but your choices are heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana, alcohol, MDMA (Ecstasy) and peanuts. Yes, peanuts. And you have to give him whatever has the least chance of sending him to hospital.

What do you give him? 

The answer of course is alcohol or MDMA. And if there’s no booze or E left, then the peanuts, then marijuana, followed by meth, coke and finally heroin.

Some stats.

In 2011, in the United States, there were 162 visits per 100,000 to an emergency department involving cocaine. For marijuana the figure was 146 per 100,000, for heroin 83 visits per 100,000, and for MDMA 7 visits per 100,000. And for alcohol 134 visits per 100,000. With regards to meth, in 2011 103,000 meth users went to the emergency department due to methamphetamine.

In 2012 about 1% of the US population used MDMA, or around 311,745,000 users. And in 2011 there was around 21,612,000 cannabis users. The number of alcohol users was around 56,738,000 and the number of meth users in 2012 was 1,200,000. There were 620,000 heroin users and 1,500,000 cocaine users.

And 1% of Americans were allergic to peanuts. 

Putting everything together you get what I call the “Peanut” scale.

  • Alcohol: 0.73%
  • MDMA (Ectasy): 0.73%
  • Peanuts: 1%
  • Cannabis: 2.08%
  • Meth: 8.58%
  • Cocaine: 30.06%
  • Heroin: 41.29%

The Peanut scale basically represents the chances of someone going to the emergency department as a result of taking a particular drug. 

Or eating a peanut. 

Each figure is calculated simply by taking the number of people admitted to emergency due to a particular drug and dividing it by the number of users of that drug.

Let’s take a closer look at those numbers, starting with MDMA.

Alcohol is a legal drug. It’s regulated. We have social structures in place which help curb abuse. MDMA has none of those things.

  In New Zealand MDMA is classified as Class B drug. MDMA is regarded as a dangerous drug, and it is. No doubt about it. Then again so is alcohol. Dangers of taking MDMA include serotonin overload and serotonin depletion syndrome. If a side effect of alcohol is agressiveness then side effects of MDMA include paranoia and anxiety. If you do MDMA regularly your chances of committing suicide are 7 times higher than normal. They don’t call it Sucicide Tuesday for nothing.

But what makes MDMA really dangerous is that as a result of it being illegal most Ectasy contains little or no MDMA but instead more dangerous chemicals such as Bath Salts. And of those that do have MDMA the amount of MDMA is increasing as dealers try and outdo each other, with some pills having as mcuh as 300mg of MDMA, or three times the recommended dose. Why there is a recommended dose for a drug that has been outlawed I have no idea, but there you go.

So given that the chances of going to hospital after taking MDMA is the same as having too much to drink, why is MDMA a Class B drug? Not only is it statistically as safe as alcohol, by having regulations users could be assured they were taking MDMA and the amount of MDMA in a pill could be set to a maximum level eg between 60 and 100mg. 

Put simply, if MDMA was legal and regulated, it’s Peanut rating would be even lower – much lower than booze.

Ok, so good news for MDMA users but bad news for potheads with marijuana having over twice the chances of sending someone to hospital than alcohol or eating a peanut. 

But wait. Again, alcohol is legal and regulated with social structures in place to curb abuse. When you have a drink you know how much alcohol you’re having. When you smoke a joint you never know how much THC you’re putting in your body. 

And how high (snigger), really, is 2% anyway? Let’s put things in perspective here.

Everytime you drive you have a 1 in 200, or 0.5% chance of having an accident. Most of us drive a lot more than we smoke a joint, yet driving a car is around 1/4 as dangerous pot. 

If you’re a woman, the chances of being raped is 2.6% or, if you include words, the chances of being sexually assaulted can be as much as 20%. And of those assaults most will involve alcohol. This means that if you’re a woman you’re much safer going to a place that serves cannabis and having a joint than going to a bar.

So why is marijuana illegal and not regulated? Regulation would keep out the gangs and the dodgy mom and pop operators, and users would be able to tell the amount of THC and CBD as it would be marked on the packet. There would be regulations prescribing the amount of CBD vs THC required for something to be considered medical marijuana vs recreational. 

Medicial marijuana debate, over.

Why don’t we at least allow places to sell marijuana under strict conditions, and with the requirement that the cannabis must be consumed on premises?

Admittedly the Peanut scale does not take into account long term harm from using a particular drug. So let’s take a look at drug treatment admissions. In 2008 in the US 23.8% of admissions for drug treatment were for alcohol, 17% was for marijuana, 14.1% was for heroin, and 0.4% was for other drugs. Assuming those figures were roughly the same in 2011 then chances of requiring treatment for a particular drug were as follows: for alcohol 4.33%, cannabis 1.18%, and for MDMA a very low 0.0039%. Or to put in another way if someone’s drug of choice was alcohol, and another’s drug of choice was marijuana, the former would have four times the chance of ending up in treatment than the dope smoker. And if the second person’s drugs of choice was MDMA, then the alkie would have over one thousand times the chance of requiring treatment compared to the MDMA user. 

Finally, sure, figures are rough and from 2011 and from the US. But I believe they are indicative of the relative dangers of the substances mentioned. And if going to a bar is more dangerous than having a joint at a place designed for having a joint, with the first being legal and the second illegal, then there is something seriously wrong with NZ’s drug laws. 

The sources for this article were:

A Super referendum

Pete George blogs:

As soon as practical after this year’s election (next year) we should have an survey type referendum (non-binding)that asks us the public what we want. It should ask questions on:

  • age of eligibility
  • set age or flexible
  • means testing
  • rate of payment – indexed or otherwise
  • Super fund contributions locked in or not
  • targeted assistance for those who have to retire younger for health reasons
  • anything else?

Then all parties MPs in Parliament, using the help of an expert group, should work together to come up with a legislative package based on public preferences plus fiscal prudence and social responsibility. Any votes should be on a conscience basis.

The resulting package should then go to the public for a binding referendum vote.

The last time there was a referendum on superannuation, over 90% voted against the proposal.

The Angry Identitarian Left

The Baliocene Apocrypha writes:

The Angry Identitarian Left is the way it is, in part, because its practices are optimized specifically for college campus activism. 

Within a university, the world is controlled by a nigh-omnipotent authority.  If you are a student, it is probable that the authority basically likes you and wants you to succeed; even if the administrators find you annoying, they fundamentally regard you as community members who should be receiving a good education, not as vermin or monsters or fifth-columnists.  If you are a leftist or liberal, it is probable that the authority basically shares your fundamental values; the administrators are basically you, thirty years down the pike.  But the authority is lazy and venal and (especially) worried about disruptions and embarrassments.  By default, you will be denied a lot of the political things you want, because that’s the easiest and cheapest thing, because the most convenient way to keep donors happy usually involves sweeping problems under the rug and not shelling out money. 

Under these circumstances, the most flexible strategic plan seems to involve a two-pronged social assault, with the prongs consisting of “moral suasion” and “extortion.”  You speak with as much holiness and self-righteousness as you can muster, in hopes that you can guilt the administrators into acknowledging the merit of your points, which has a good chance of working because deep down the administrators probably do see the merit of your points.  (They really, genuinely don’t want to be racist or sexist either!)  And you make yourself as annoying and obstreperous as you can, with the implicit promise that you’ll stop as soon as you get what you want, in hopes that appeasing you becomes the easy way out. 

There’s not much to be gained by persuading anyone of anything, or by looking to compromise with anyone, because there’s not really any principled opposition with whom to engage.  There’s also no real downside to using nasty rhetoric and dirty tactics.  In the wider world, that shit causes people to hate and fear you, it alienates potential allies and cements the resolve of your enemies…but within the college, you have no genuine enemies and you don’t have much use for allies.  All that matters is whether you can break through the sloth and self-interestedness of the decision-makers.

A very interesting analysis that makes sense. The tactics that work so well on campus are what alienate and backfire off campus.

RIP Murray Ball

Stuff reports:

Footrot Flats creator Murray Ball has died. He was aged 78.

He had been suffering from Alzheimer’s and had been nursed at his Gisborne home for some time. He is survived by his wife Pam, and children, and grandchildren.

Like so many New Zealanders I grew up on Footrot Flats. I owned every single album as it would always be an easy Christmas present from my parents. Horse was of course my favourite character, followed by Dog.

The replacement car key rip off

The Herald reports:

A Kiwi businessman has come out tops over big-time car manufacturer Toyota, after a replacement key remote cost him more than $500.

Businessman Damian Funnell took action after dealership company Armstrongs Auckland charged him $475 and a $50 programming fee on top of that to replace a lost remote for his Estima. …

Fairfax said tribunal referee Clayton Luke said the most – but still reasonable – a key would cost was about $200.

As a result, Toyota will now have to pay the $325.62 difference.

Luke said Toyota’s claim had been misleading and that it did not disclose a “significant portion” of the price charged by the dealership, Armstrongs Auckland.

Toyota breached the Consumer Guarantees Act that outlines that a manufacturer must guarantee reasonable availability of spare parts.

“I am satisfied that the price charged by Armstrongs was not a price whereby Toyota New Zealand could say the keys as spare parts are reasonably available,” Luke said.

“The part is simply not reasonably available when what is being charged is more than 10 times its manufacturing cost and that cost is likely to grow to some 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the value of the vehicle within the reasonable lifetime of the vehicle.’

Pleased to see him win this, and others should do the same if their car dealers try to charge more than $200. They are basically extorting money from you, as if you have paid $8,000 for a car and lose your key, you simply have to get a new key. So they charge $500 for a $30 key.

Manji vs Brownlee

Stuff reports:

Christchurch City councillor Raf Manji says he has the support of National Party voters in Ilam and believes he can beat incumbent Gerry Brownlee in this year’s general election.

Yeah because what Ilam voters want is an MP who has no influence with anyone.

“I’ve spoken to a lot of National voters who have persuaded me that, yes, they would support me, so I think it’s do-able.

People are often polite to your face – does not mean they will vote for you.

Guest Post: French Presidential Election

A guest post by Stephan Dujakovic:

“Rarely has the French Presidential Election elicited so much interest as the upcoming one in April/May this year. The non-francophone MSM interest is perked up by the recent seismic shifts in the USA and the UK, with Front National’s Marine Le Pen chances on the up and grabbing herself a status of future pariah of the liberal world. The second, yet probably the most important reason for such a high interest, is the future (or demise) of the European Union project.

The first round of the presidential elections are scheduled for 23 April 2017, in which all declared candidates will take part. If no candidate has an absolute majority in the first round (which is extremely unlikely), the second round will take place on 7 May 2017 between the two candidates with the highest score in round one.

So, who are the candidates, who or what is behind them and who is waiting to backstab them within their own ranks?

For the sake of expediency, I will not mention all ten of them, which range from Trotskyists, greens, various degrees of socialists (more on them all in a separate post) and other independent single-cause candidates.

The five main candidates, who will affect both the right vote and the left vote as to who goes into the run-off vote, are:

Jean-Luc Melenchon (Mouvement De Gauche – to the left of the mainstream PS)

Benoit Hammon (Parti Socialiste or PS – the party of the incumbent Francois Hollande)

Emmanuel Macron (ex PS and now an independent movement Macron en Marche)

Marine Le Pen (Front National)

Francois Fillon (Les Republicains)

 

Francois Fillon, Les Republicains

I struggle to recall all the names that Les Republicains used to be known as (RPR, MMP, etc) over the last decades, with each name-change as a result of some recent scandal involving either Jacques Chirac, former PM Edouard Balladur, Nicolas Sarkozy, etc. Yet, they are always there – seen as a conservative (for French standards) safe pair of hands when the economy is struggling. The challenge they have to deal with is quasi-impossibility to make the much needed reforms due to such strong position the unions have in France.

For their current reincarnation, Les Republicains have chosen Francois Fillon, after a surprising and at times rowdy primaries, with the three main candidates at the end Alain Juppe, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Fillon. Rowdy because every time Nicolas Sarkozy is involved, all gloves are off and backstabbing gets particularly vicious.

Some context, as briefly as possible: Juppe was a loyal Chirac man, his former Prime Minister, he even went to jail to save his man. Nicolas Sarkozy is/was a somewhat loyal Edouard Balladur man (also a former Prime Minister during the “cohabitation” period – when the socialist Francois Mitterrand was the president, yet the right won the parliamentary elections- and later a sworn enemy of Chirac. Both went on to become presidential candidates, ending their “30 year old friendship”). Somewhere in the background and quite unnoticed as a candidate was Francois Fillon, a long time senator, representing a rural constituency, openly Catholic in a very secular France and briefly Prime Minister under Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency.

Alain Juppe represents more of a liberal and “moderate” right, when it comes to recent upheavals and terror attacks France has suffered. Detractors call him “multi-culti”, which has become an insult in recent years, while also signalling the risk of losing the traditional right votes to Front National.

Nicolas Sarkozy is seen as an authoritarian, manipulative and “extreme right-wing” candidate within the LR, though the “extreme right wing” is a calculated strategy, designed to arrest dissipation of votes to the FN and even clawing some of them back. He is regularly accused as having planted a lot of his people within the institutions, such as within the Elysee Palace, police and even the internal secret service agency, still feeding him with crucial intelligence on politicians and investigations.

Francois Fillon is somewhere in the middle of all this. Representing a traditional and rapidly disappearing rural France, openly Catholic, with tough talk on the crime and immigration, but without too much populism. Crucially, he has signalled to openly campaign on executing employment law reforms, culling state sector jobs in the hundreds of thousands and restricting unions’ influence.

As is often the case in France, some criminal investigations suddenly and coincidentally start during political campaigns and the short straw was drawn by Nicolas Sarkozy, whose name was plastered in most media relating to the financing of his previous presidential campaigns, while fighting Juppe and Fillon during the primaries. Add to that a serious tiredness of LR members of Sarkozy, he has dropped to third place, leaving Juppe and Fillon in the run-off round of their primaries.

Juppe’s camp kicked-off some premature celebrations, celebrating the “experienced” and “reformed” Juppe (after his release from prison, he went back from scratch, won the mayoralty of his hometown of Bordeaux and despite all odds, found himself at the centre of the national stage – again), even though their candidate came second with 29% of the votes. Fillon probably surprised himself with 44% of the votes in the first round, thus eliminating Sarkozy – who had a similar (yet more aggressive) platform with just under 21%.

The run-off vote sealed it for Fillon, who went on to win an impressive 66% of the votes and winning all constituencies except Juppe’s Bordeaux region and Chirac’s old stomping ground of Correze.

There was finally a candidate for the LR, expected to take the presidency “easily”, using his transparency/squeaky clean image, and his traditionalist message, where even being openly Catholic is not seen any more as an obstacle, but an asset in France that has experienced first fear and now open hostility towards radical Islam (and let’s be brutally honest, Islam in general) and religion is now suddenly seen as a “force resistante”. His more moderate message to the one presented by Front National’s Marine Le Pen, no matter how “reformed” or reformed, was seen as more acceptable, safe, there was hope that France can make it with the much needed reforms and after 5 years of utter shambles under Francois Hollande.

And then, the unimaginable happened.

You have to go back several decades to the days of Jacques Chirac’s mayoralty of Paris, when “the occult financing” of political parties started by employing fictitious people to real jobs in the City of Paris or employing real people to fictitious jobs – all with the same goal: take the supposed salary money to finance a party or their campaigns, at the expense of the taxpayer. Mayors have changed, but the practice remained, though occasionally an investigation would be started, usually after a revelation in Le Canard Enchaine (a satirical weekly in France with a great track record of uncovering dodgy politicians of all ideologies), some would get in trouble and many would later go to jail.

1 February 2017, Le Canard Enchaine comes out with their investigation – Francois Fillon’s wife has received tens of thousands of euros for her job as her husband’s assistant in the Senate, then for her husband’s replacement senator and another fictitious job in a magazine, privately held by her husband’s supporter. French law does not forbid politicians employing their family members as their assistants, a good chunk do that quite openly. What the law does not allow is employing someone who does not do any work, yet still pocketing that money.

Fillon responded aggressively in the media within hours, threatening to sue Le Canard Enchaine and bizarrely coming up himself in a televised interview that he has employed his children as legal assistants for a period of time, presumably trying to pre-empt the next round of revelations by the weekly. Unfortunately for him, checking the timelines showed that his children did not even graduate during those years, his explanations on the sums collected by his wife did not match and threatening to sue Le Canard Enchaine never eventuated – a reminder that the paper, staunchly independent and with zero advertising revenue – has never lost a single lawsuit in over 100 year long history.

Fillon continues to deny any wrong doing, glossing over his transparency promises and squeaky clean image projection, and blames political assassination from the left. Many politicians, on both left and right, have fallen after French unions have taken their aim at, after they would announce some overdue employment law reforms – just ask the socialist Prime Minister under Hollande, Manuel Vals, who didn’t even win the nomination of his own party for the Presidential elections. It isn’t inconceivable that Fillon has suffered the same fate – dirt digging in order to discredit him and prevent reforms. But my money is on Nicolas Sarkozy.

Fillon has tumbled down in the opinion polls from being a favourite to win the second round against Marine Le Pen to not even making it to the run-off vote. It is the most unprecedented and stunning possibility that for the first time ever in the history of the 5th Republic (modern France), neither of the “big two” parties will make it to the run-off vote, with Parti Socialiste being totally written off with their Corbyn-like candidate, Benoit Hammon, and the fate of Francois Fillon nearly sealed.

Although most of his lieutenants have stood by him, blaming “dirty politics” against their candidate, the panic bells have started ringing amongst his ranks, as well as the entire Les Republicains party. Fillon has resisted and probably will manage (somehow) to resist all calls for him to withdraw. LR doesn’t have a process in place on how to deal with a similar situation. They cannot force him to withdraw and if he was to do so, it would be a tacit admission of guilt on his part – the man is cornered completely and his only chance of survival is to rough it out and hope to survive, not necessarily politically, but probably to remain out of jail and in the process incriminate his wife.

Only a few days ago, Fillon has called on his supporters to give him their public support in one of Paris’ main public places, managing to assemble a huge crowd under torrential rain (200,000 according to organisers – 30,000 according to police, with the true number probably somewhere in the middle). The day after, Alain Juppe has made his first public comment on the matter, surprisingly ruling himself out of contention, should he be asked to be a stand-in candidate. Possibly quite wise from Juppe, given that he would not have a slightest chance against Le Pen, should he reach round two, but he also said that he doesn’t want to be seen as being part of the “Fillon political assassination” team, because Fillon has claimed innocence and has blamed his political opponents for these leaks.

Should Fillon crumble, and just today a mere few hours ago, Le Canard Enchaine has made more revelations of an undeclared 50,000 euro “loan” from a “businessman friend”, who would fancy his chances of being able to defeat Marine Le Pen at her own game? Look no further than Mr Sarkozy. If Fillon remains a candidate, he has almost zero chances of reaching the second round – and I am predicting that the contest will be between the independent and left of centre Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. The traditional Catholic France, the silent majority, will NEVER vote for a socialist, no matter how he calls himself or herself, and will side with Marine Le Pen. Should Fillon remain the candidate, you can read it here first, Marine Le Pen will be France’s new President.

In my next few posts, I will write more about other candidates and try to paint you a clear landscape of political upheavals in France, past and present.”

THE CASE FOR ALLOWING AID IN DYING IN NEW ZEALAND

Andrew Geddis has written an article in NZ Criminal Law Review, making the case for allowing aid in dying. Some extracts:

We generally presume competent adults to be the superior judges of what is best for them in the particular situation they are confronted with and so should respect their decisions about what actions they do or do not want to take in response. Thus, it is a foundational principle of medical practice that informed consent must be obtained for any procedure on or treatment of a patient who is capable of giving such consent.

So we should allow people to make informed consent decisions about what is best for them, so long as they are of sound mind and no undue pressure.

I will argue in more detail below that the claim actually is false in respect of aid in dying, as there simply is no reason for us to assume that collectively we have a superior understanding of what are the true best interests of relevant persons. We cannot honestly say a person is “foolish” or “short-sighted” or “delusional” for wanting to end her life rather than continue a necessarily truncated existence marred by pain and suffering.

I prefer the individual racked by pained and suffering to decide for themselves, rather than have a collective impose their will.

The impact of Motor Neurone DIsease is listed:

eventually individuals will not be able to stand or walk, get in or out of bed on their own, or use their hands and arms. Difficulty swallowing and chewing impair the person’s ability to eat normally and increase the risk of choking. Maintaining weight will then become a problem. Because cognitive abilities are relatively intact, people are aware of their progressive loss of function and may become anxious and depressed. … In later stages of the disease, individuals have difficulty breathing as the muscles of the respiratory system weaken. They eventually lose the ability to breathe on their own and must depend on ventilatory support for survival.

And the choice not allowed:

But for others the promise of months of slow wasting away until finally their body ceases to function is an utterly horrifying prospect that they would rather avoid by way of a swift and painless end. Similarly, other relevant persons facing comparably bleak end of life circumstances also may wish to receive aid in dying rather than continue to suffer the inescapable effects of their particular condition.

Anyway my snippets do not do the full article justice. It is 60 pages in length and is a compelling argument for why the law should change.

Guest Post: Wellington College

A guest post by Ben Nettleton:

My Grandmother was a very wise woman, one of her memorable remarks when reflecting on 80 odd years was “never judge the present generation by your own standards, you don’t know the challenges and difficulties they face”.

I was reflecting on that remark against the recent publicity over Wellington College Students. Watching the frenzy build, listening to John Campbell on Checkpoint stoking the fire with sanctimonious indignation. Listening to the School Principal outline carefully rehearsed public relations influenced statements.

It is sadly becoming all too common; indeed, these are almost a weekly occurrence. We have the online world to thank. Once upon a time the social justice warriors could be filtered by newspaper’s editorial departments, restricted to once a month, or just filed in the rubbish bin. Now they roam wild and free, a cause just looking for a problem. Primed to scream the house down upon discovering anything that offends their view of how the world should be, regardless of whether it is merely silly teenage bravado.

To be clear (assuming the relevant warriors have managed to read this far without popping a blood vessel) I am not condoning what said the students concerned said, they were stupid and they didn’t think, and I am certain they will learn from the experience. But that is my point the teenage years are formative they are when you learn a lot of life lessons, such as if you drink 4 cruisers in 20 minutes you’re going to throw up or that the girl you imagined was your one and only true love probably isn’t and the world may not end after all and countless other things.

I was at University around a decade or so ago, High School a bit before, we had MSN messenger usually on dial up. It had its problems but they are nothing on what teenagers are encountering today through the rapid rise and develop of numerous social media platforms. Recently on Dunedin News Facebook page a lynch mob of 200 plus formed based on a video being posted of a Kings High School student yelling dumb things at a Queens High School girl, we didn’t have the context of the video, what preceded it or what happened after, but this is not the type of detail the online community cares to concern itself with, they are usually far too busy constructing the gallows, the Otago Daily Times joining in to boot.

If we think hard enough I think we can all remember the challenges we faced in our teenage years, they are called growing pains for a reason. All too often baby boomers remark to me “thank goodness they didn’t have social media in my day”. In a previous capacity as a school board of trustee’s member I sat on numerous board discipline committees, it used to frustrate the hell out of me, having a student in front of me who had been bounced up to us for something horrendous, and the best explanation they managed to come up with is “I don’t know why I did it”. A retired School Principal gave me some good insight pointing out when they tell you they don’t know, they are being honest, they don’t always know why they do things, they’re brains are still wiring up, science suggests this can take till 25.

In our rush to condemn we are all too quick to forget our own misdemeanors at that age. The behavior needs dealt with and schools and parents are well resourced to do that. A media feeding frenzy adds nothing. As my young brother, (somewhat closer to the demographic) said to me “if schools are going to hold a special assembly every time some teenage guy says some stupid shit on Facebook, they are not going to get much done”. 

So, knowing that teenagers make bad decisions, impulsive decisions, why an earth is appropriate to summon the rabble and have such a public tarring and feathering session. Yes, some media don’t identify names but New Zealand is a small place and it is unlikely to have anything other than token effect.

It is my great fear (as overseas evidence would appear to suggest) it is only a matter of time before his type of unethical reporting results in a tragedy. For the doctrinal social justice warriors, the means will no doubt justify the ends. However, given our media will no doubt be wringing their hands upon such an event, perhaps they could pause to consider on how their actions contribute.

A very good post.

Yay – Little pledges no tax increases

The Herald reports:

Labour will not be raising taxes if elected at this year’s election.

Party leader Andrew Little said his team would have enough income to pay for their election promises now the government was expecting a $1 billion surplus this year ahead of Treasury projections.

He said as a result, his team was not planning to raise taxes if elected.

This is great news, and excellent to see Labour drop their previous policies of walloping higher income earners. Parties should be debating tax cuts, not tax increases.

It really is good to see the Labour Party promise no tax increases – the first time in over 20 years they have done so. This is a real move towards the middle ground, and will make them more electable.

Of course we have de facto tax increases through bracket creep. Almost all workers end up paying a higher average tax rate every year as wages increases and more of their income moves into a higher bracket. Over the past seven years the Government is receiving $2.1 billion a year more through bracket creep, so the first priority should be handing those stealth increases back.

Anyway again it is great to see Labour promise no tax increases. Hopefully Greens and NZ first will do the same.

Great response

Final Mt Albert Results

A stupid rule

The Herald reports:

Jacinda Ardern’s foray into DIY has been a flash in the pan after an Auckland resident complained that Labour’s deputy leader installed her own new toilet.

Justin Will complained to the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board in February after reading a media report that Ardern replaced her own toilet at the home she shares with television personality Clarke Gayford in Point Chevalier.

The board investigated and chief executive Martin Sawyers this week told Will that Ardern had apologised for her error and the case was closed.

In some parts of Auckland, including where Ardern lives, it is illegal to install a toilet unless the work is carried out by an authorised plumber.

Ardern told the Herald she did not realise when she bought and installed with Gayford the new toilet, to replace a broken down existing one, that they were breaking the law.

“Interestingly enough you can replace your own toilet in Wellington, but you can’t replace your own toilet in parts of Auckland and I fall outside the area that you’re allowed to replace your own toilet, I’m told, by about a kilometre.”

The real story here is why do we have such a stupid rule or law. Either it is safe everywhere to install your own toilet or it isn’t safe. People own their own properties. Unless there is a significant safety issue (such as major electrical or structural work), they should be able to DIY.

An interesting US poll

Interesting stuff in the USA Today/Suffolk Uni poll:

  • Right direction 46%, wrong direction 43%
  • Trump favourable 45%, unfavouable 47%
  • Clinton favourable 35%, unfavourable 55%
  • Pence favourable 47%, unfavourable 35%
  • Media favourable 37%, unfavourable 50%
  • Trump approve 47%,disapprove 44%
  • Hispanics – Trump approve 38%, disapprove 53%
  • 34% agree media are the enemy of the people, 59% disagree
  • Most trusted TV sources – Fox 28%, CNN 11%, PBS 9%,

Morgan Party registered

The Herald reports:

Gareth Morgan’s new political party has been officially registered by the Electoral Commission.

Morgan launched The Opportunities Party (Top) last year and after signing up more than 2000 financial members applied for registration in January.

Top stood Geoff Simmons in the Mt Albert by-election last month, and he recorded 600 votes; 4.6 per cent of the total.

Simmons, an economist who worked for the Morgan Foundation and is now Top’s chief of staff, declared the party happy with that result, given its target was 5 per cent.

That was 4.6% in a by-election where minor parties get more coverage and National wasn’t even standing.

Anyway I hope they are just as successful as in the by-election and they get say 4.6% of the vote nationally.

Guest Post: TIME FOR A RE-THINK ON TOBACCO

A guest post by Carrick Graham:

It seems tobacco is so last-year, particularly with the overwhelming public health focus now on addressing global obesity issues.

For years, if not decades, tobacco control advocates successfully moved the dial against tobacco products, heralding in restriction after restriction. Virtually all the boxes on the tobacco control to-do list have been ticked off, including the holy grail of plain-packaging.

Governments meanwhile, have not only been happy to introduce changes to the Smokefree Environments Act – on average every seven years or so, but perhaps more tellingly, have quietly sat back and collected more than NZ$1.7 billion in excise revenue year after year from the sale of tobacco products.

But there’s now a glitch in all of this, and its reverberations are starting to crumble the status quo.

The annual excise increase, so eagerly awaited by tobacco control proponents, is fueling what seems to be a daily, if not weekly occurrence of aggravated robberies against dairies, convenience stores and service stations around the country. These robberies are often violent, and wreak havoc on these small retailers businesses.

ACT leader David Seymour is regularly tweeting about these incidents, and has called on the Police to track tobacco theft, saying ‘tobacco related robberies have become a cottage industry and a threat to public safety’.

Seymour says that ‘tobacco taxes have more than doubled in the past five years’ and ‘it’s only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt or worse’. Amazingly, the Police don’t record information on the rates of tobacco-related burglary.

Further to this  comments about a flourishing black-market in tobacco products continue to gain traction. Even Customs Minister Nicky Wagner recognises it saying, ‘the black market for tobacco will likely grow as the price of cigarettes increases and officials are “watching it very closely”’.

There would be few, if any, that would say increased excised rates have not reduced smoking rates in New Zealand. But is this view now slightly changing?

Take End Smoking New Zealand, a group that includes some of New Zealand’s leading and most respected tobacco control figures. They have just issued a media release saying:

‘Manufacturer’s returns to the Ministry of Health released on 3 March show that tobacco consumption per adult decreased by 2.4% in 2016 compared with 2015. This is much less than the average annual decrease of 5% per year from 2011 to 2015. This 2.4% decrease was equal to the increase in adult population over the past year.’

In other words, it looks like tobacco excise increases may have run their course and lost their efficacy.

This then makes the call by tobacco giant Philip Morris to ‘tax its cigarettes more as a bid to move to a “smoke-free future”’ even more interesting. While this suggestion was made in the UK, there is no reason to believe it would not be supported by their company here in New Zealand.

With tobacco excise rates already among the highest in the world, retailers are likely to be alarmed at the prospect of a tobacco company calling for yet more increases on tobacco when they are at the coal-face of unintended consequences.

None the less, it is a cunning move by Philip Morris and draws further attention to how the world is changing as more and more people look towards electronic cigarettes to reduce their harm from combustible tobacco products.

Right now the Government is sitting on a Report from the Ministry of Health following a consultation last year into policy options for the regulation of electronic cigarettes. For once you have both public health researchers and vaping organisations on the same page supporting the Government’s intention to legalise electronic cigarettes and e-liquids that contain nicotine.

This unprecedented support by two vastly different groups further demonstrates how the ‘tobacco debate’ has moved on from years of acrimonious arguments.

It also shows an opportunity that should not be lost, particularly as the issue of harm-reduction starts to take centre-stage around the world.

Disclosure: Carrick Graham was Corporate & Regulatory Affairs Director for BAT NZ for four years until 2006. He has since founded and managed several public affairs firms, and now runs GMS Management, a company that provides research, analysis and regulatory insights.

What’s driving the gender pay gap

The Ministry for Women released:

The Ministry for Women has today published new research – undertaken by Auckland University of Technology for the Ministry for Women – that identifies what’s driving the gender pay gap which still sits at 12 percent.

“The research, lead by Professor Gail Pacheco, tells us that factors such as type of work, family responsibilities, education, and age only actually account for 20 percent of the gender pay gap,” says Margaret Retter, Acting CEO of the Ministry for Women.

“Around 80 percent of the gap is due to ‘unexplained’ factors. We, at the Ministry for Women, view these factors primarily as behaviour, attitudes, and assumptions about women in work, including unconscious bias.”

Although women are graduating with more qualifications than men, the research shows these qualifications are not fully reflected in wages.

I’m surprised that known factors account for only 20%. I assumed it would be higher.

The unexplained factors are of course difficult to counter. One of those factors is that women are not as assertive or aggressive as men in negotiating pay rises, but this is partly because women who are as assertive as men get labelled as high maintenance, difficult etc etc. So part of the solution is having a culture where assertiveness is seen just as positively for women as men.

Paula Bennett noted:

It will take a concerted effort to reduce the gender pay gap. Our former Finance Minister, now Prime Minister, Bill English is a good example of someone striving to do better for women. When he was Minister of Finance he had to approve board appointments. He’d receive lists that were mostly, if not entirely men. So instead of taking the attitude “that must be all there was out there” and the word of Treasury that these were the only qualified candidates, he’d send the list back to Treasury and wouldn’t consider making appointments until he had women to choose from. And sure enough – once Treasury was challenged they always found good women candidates. He would still always choose the best person for the job – he just insisted on having the best to choose from. Forty eight per cent of his board appointments as Finance Minister were women. 

Interesting by contrast, the entire senior leadership of Andrew Little’s office is men – a total blokefest.