sagenz

Tarawera - the Collins are liars

120 years on, rumblings grow over Mt Tarawera access .

Mt Tarawera is owned by Ngati Rangitihi, who awarded the contract for access to Mrs Collins and her husband, Steve, in September 2000.

Liars.  Employing thugs.

Here is my previous post on the subject:  sagenz: Here is the real deal on Rotorua lakes.

Nobody has lived on the mountain in the memory of my family and from my review of history nobody has ever lived on the mountain. But because we have a western system that insists all land must be owned, title of the mountain was given to 1 of the local tribes who seemed to have a better claim. Perhaps they had a majority of the 150 or so people who lived on the shores of the lake.

Blog break

After a brief  period of sustained posting I have had the last few days off focusing on some other things.  This blog will be slumbering for a while and posting will be extremely intermittent.  Thanks for visiting and I hope to return when I have more time and the things I need to focus on are solved. 

I will have a new perspective on public health systems.  The kind of monopoly that rations access until problems become life or death issues has a lot to answer for.

Until next time.

So Cullen can get away with Nazi salutes

As reported in Stuff: "At the end of Dr Brash's speech, his deputy Gerry Brownlee waved a cheery paw at Dr Cullen, intoning, "Bye-bye, Michael. Last Budget, Michael. Bye-bye! Dr Cullen responded with a stiff-armed Nazi salute, complete with a finger moustache. "

Meantime we have Joris De Bres telling Kiwis not to mock Chairman Mao.

No double standards there then!

Anti-Consumerism Equals Anti-Womanism By Naomi Wolf

Anti-Consumerism Equals Anti-Womanism By Naomi Wolf.   hattip Clint Heine Online

Such an insightful, well argued article is almost enough to convert me to feminism

Net Worth trend started 12 years ago

Labour loves to take credit for boosting the governments net worth. Budget Economic & Fiscal Update 2006 - The Treasury shows the reality.  the trend started increasing 12 years ago.  It has flattened slightly under labour.  To Cullens credit he has not massively increased spending as a proportion of GDP.  But lets stop the spin that all the good news started under Labour.

Budget 2006: Excerpts

First point I have to make is that publishing this budget data in a form that I can whack  a pivvy table on it is brilliant.  the only problem is that there is not enough multi year data.  Only 2006 & 2007.  It should be the full cost out to 2010 and back to 2000.  10 years of data at least. 

Budget 2006 Herald comment: Audrey Young. "credit must go to Cullen for planting the accelerator "on roading projects, advancing them from 10 years to five.

Police spending is up from $1072m to $1072m.  How will this help provide 1000 extra police?

From the Fiscal Strategy Report - Budget 2006 - The Treasury.

At the same time, the Government also aims to keep core Crown expenses at around 32% of GDP over the long term. This means that, net of NZS Fund returns and contributions, we require core Crown operating surpluses of around 1% of GDP on average over the cycle.

So much for reforming Energy markets.  Expenditure is down 45%.

Vote	2006	2007
Energy	275,113	151,049	-45.1%

Apparently Regional aid and Overseas Aid are no longer policy targets of this government.

Vote	2006	2007	%
Official Development Assistance	369,463	358,885	-2.9%
Economic, Industry and Regional Development	300,012	271,250	-9.6%

Biosecurity does not seem to be a priority either.

Vote	2006	2007	%
Biosecurity	172,685	151,442	-12.3%

Apparently this government is spinning that it is spending more on education.  How does it explain this analysis by functional classification Education?

Functional Classification	Education
Vote	2006	2007	%
Education	8,529,050	8,907,248	4.4%
Revenue	1,497,517	15,420	-99.0%
Social Development	404,079	424,823	5.1%
Education Review Office	28,428	28,984	2.0%
Research, Science and Technology	20,228	22,883	13.1%
National Library	12,070	12,627	4.6%
Community and Voluntary Sector	150	150	0.0%
Grand Total	10,491,522	9,412,135	-10.3%

Functional Classification Social Welfare gets the biggest increase.  Despite the much touted success with reducing Benefit numbers the cost of this area is ever increasing.  CYF is punished for its performance by getting a less than CPI increase.  The increase in the Vote Justice related to social welfare indicates it is getting harder to manage that rump of beneficiaries.

Functional Classification	Social Security and Welfare
Vote	2006	2007	%
Social Development	13,070,763	13,779,417	5.4%
Revenue	2,030,326	2,638,539	30.0%
Finance	1,045,557	878,264	-16.0%
Child, Youth and Family Services	459,233	463,903	1.0%
Housing	395,233	417,452	5.6%
Veterans' Affairs	249,841	267,624	7.1%
ACC	146,973	157,851	7.4%
State Services	76,057	88,359	16.2%
Justice	3,319	5,118	54.2%
Senior Citizens	1,186	1,142	-3.7%
Maori Affairs	1,663	0	-100.0%
Agriculture and Forestry	0	356
Grand Total	17,480,151	18,698,025	7.0%

This budget is as other commentators have said a boring steady as she goes.  I am forming the conclusion that Cullen is not going to be judged guilty of gross profligacy in the way Muldoon was.  But he will be judged as having missed the opportunity year after year to demonstrate the kind of original thinking and boldness that would put this country back on the path towards a place in the upper echelons of the OECD GDP per capita comparisons.  With limited thinking like this it is just not going to happen.  Following is an extract from the fiscal outlook to balance the one showing Net worth trend increasing from 1994. This post is something of a placeholder for budget.

who gives a crap

All the organs of the body were having a  meeting, trying to decide who was the one in charge.

"I  should be in charge," said the brain,  "because I run all the body's systems, so without me nothing would happen". 

"I should be in charge," said the blood,  "because I circulate oxygen all over so without me you'd all waste away." 

"I should be in charge," said the stomach," because I process food and give all of  you energy."

"I should be in charge," said the legs, "because I carry the body wherever it needs to go." 

"I should be in charge," said the eyes, "because I allow the body to see where it  goes."

"I should be in charge," said the rectum, "Because I'm responsible for waste  removal."

All the other body parts laughed at the rectum and insulted him, so in a huff, he shut  down tight.

Within a few days, the brain had a terrible headache, the  stomach was bloated, the legs got wobbly, the eyes got watery, and the blood was toxic. They all decided that the  rectum should be the boss.

The Moral of the story? 

The asshole is  usually in charge !!

If you don't send this to at least 8 people.... who gives a Crap

Ideas for increasing NZ Income per capita

I am a blogger who posts regularly on New Zealand politics and economic policy with a polemic centre Right approach.  I posted on the subject of productivity trends in New Zealand a while ago and have just seen  David Skillings Presentation.  to Wayne Mapps Innovation forum online.  I wondered about the level of analysis extended to current productivity trends.  It seems that a country working harder and harder to stand still is not achieving much in a work life balance.

I have consistently found the New Zealand Institute analysis to be insightful as to New Zealands position and causes of it.  The challenge for all of us who are interested in improving New Zealands economic position in the world is in recommending specific policy changes that will be effective and politically acceptable.

There are a number of policy ideas and semi rhetorical questions that I consider would have a practical & beneficial impact on productivity and growth in New Zealand.  Some of the questions would not be expected from a centre right commentator with libertarian leanings. 

My basic premise is that we are not here to run an intellectually pure but poor country.  We are here to have the highest possible income for the lowest number of hours worked with the least amount of government interference in our lives.  The only way to do that in the long term is to increase productivity.

The following are a few ideas for increasing real income per capita

Increase Business Depreciation rates to match Germany.  ie 100% in Year One.

Germany has a very high rate of business investment in new equipment.  One reason for this is the 100% tax depreciation rate allowed by the German tax system.  New Zealand attempts to match depreciation rates to useful lives and ensures it is more costly to invest in capital than to make labour more productive.  The cost of this would have a high initial one off cost but would effectively mean no difference to long term nominal tax to the state.  The method has been in use for many years with regard to forest expenditure.  I have always been at a loss to understand why manufacturing is not offered the same breaks.

Investment of the New Zealand Super fund onshore

• The logic of diversifying investment by the NZ Super Fund internationally is intellectually impeccable.  However New Zealands biggest problem is local equity investment.  A policy of allocating say 50% of the funds to New Zealand would provide a vastly larger local pool.  This would have the impact of increasing prices for NZ equities and would also make it a more attractive place to raise capital.  The risk is that New Zealand will underperform.  But that seems a circular argument.  The following table shows less than 9% of investment is in New Zealand.  Investment within New Zealand will have a multiplier effect on GDP.  Thus the threshold rate for an investment in New Zealand should be substantially lower than for an equivalent overseas investment that will not have the GDP multiplier.

NZ Super Fund Investment
	Total NZ Bn	%
USA	2,188.2	41.8%
Other Countries	978.8	18.7%
New_Zealand	467.3	8.9%
Japan	428.5	8.2%
United_Kingdom	398.7	7.6%
Australia	268.7	5.1%
Switzerland	144.5	2.8%
France	141.3	2.7%
Canada	118.1	2.3%
Spain	103.4	2.0%
Grand Total	5,237.5	100.0%

Reduce high marginal tax rates for middle income earners by restructuring tax system.

Much current government policy has the unintended impact of reducing investment and keeping incomes low.  The tax system imposes very high marginal rates on mid income earners.  This has a huge disincentive for people to make improvements in their own lives and forces inertia on the economy.

This would require a new government as Cullen is ideologically incapable of understanding the business dynamics and there is little point in discussing those changes here.  Raising the threshold at which no tax is paid and raising the minimum wage would go a long way to forcing business to increase productivity.  Obviously this can only be contemplated in a high employment environment such as we have now.  Consider that something around 12% more of the workforce is employed than in France and average hours are around 50% higher.  That is a big difference in leisure time & workforce participation that allows some flexibility in forcing low end incomes to rise.

Increase low end cost of employment

• The Employment Contracts Act made employing people easier and Labour changes have not yet reversed all the changes towards the basic flexibility of labour.  Wayne Mapps 90 day bill is a sensible move towards an increase in flexibility and away from litigation.
• Maryland has determined that WalMart free rides on state health care provision by not providing health benefits to its own employees and relying on them being eligible for extra state benefits.  It is effectively subsidised by other taxpayers. 
• Labour tax credits towards low end employees are effectively subsidising the labour market and creating distortions.
• Raising the minimum wage steadily would ensure that the price for labour at the bottom marginal end would encourage marginal employers to invest in machinery to make their production more efficient rather than relying on a constant turnover of taxpayer subsidised low paid unskilled untrained labour.  This will eliminate some jobs and force the production offshore.  However other employers will choose to replace cheap labour with more efficient machinery and pay skilled labour more to operate equipment.  Those jobs that cannot be moved offshore will actually have the effect of boosting GDP.

Reverse the changes in employment compliance cost that have reduced productivity.

Truth Outs! Labour has crushed New Zealand productivity growth.

The Productivity Statistics (1988–2005). show the true reality of the damage helengrad has done to the New Zealand Economy.  They inherited a steadily growing economy with excellent growth in productivity and they have broken it. Multifactor productivity has reduced from trend 2.7% to a mere 1.1%.  Their only success has been to increase the number of people in work. 

This will not be simply a short sharp recession as Cullen spins, it is a deterioration with long term consequences.  Labour have milked high commodity prices and increased worked hours for the growth in the Economy over the last 5 years.  The benefit of increased working hours can only increase growth once.  The next government will struggle to keep that high nominal level of employment.  International Commodity prices cannot be relied on to keep increasing exponentially.  Evidence shows they have tanked. 

The only way that the people of New Zealand can become wealthier in the long term is to work more productively. 

The following table shows the Compound Annual Growth Rates of various productivity factors.  Labour have had power since Nov 99, effectively March 2000 on being the closest year before they got organised to start breaking things. 

The first few years of National control in the early 90's were marked by measures taken to control serious fiscal problems inherited from the out of control last year of Labour.  Statistics NZ marks 1993 as a change.  The growth in productivity started then.  At issue is what Labour has done to the trend they inherited from National.  I have also shown the full 10 years of National for comparison.

So making the comparison of the last 5 years under Labour vs the previous 7 under National we see the damage done. Labour have achieved only 1.5% growth in Labour productivity and 1.1% in multifactor productivity.  National achieved an exceptional 3.1% growth in Labour productivity and 2.7% in multifactor productivity.

March year	Productivity indexes
	Labour	Capital	Multifactor
	Index
1988	786	1000	858
1990	863	928	886
2000	1136	1032	1094
2005	1224	1060	1155
2005 vs 2000	1.5%	0.5%	1.1%
2000 vs 1990	2.8%	1.1%	2.1%
2000 vs 1993	3.1%	2.0%	2.7%
2005 vs 1988	2.6%	0.3%	1.8%

These are damning statistics.  The current recession, The blown out current account deficit and the sabotage of Productivity growth.

All the spin on riding the Growth wave is just meaningless twaddle.

The detailed data presented by NZ statistics over such a long time frame offered a genuine opporutnity to measure this governments performance.  Measurement has got better.  I challenge all those bloggers and commentators supporting this government to justify this appalling set of statistics.

Posted by sagenz on Mar 28, 2006 at 01:42 PM | Permalink

The Productivity Statistics (1988–2005). show the true reality of the damage helengrad has done to the New Zealand Economy.  They inherited a steadily growing economy with excellent growth in productivity and they have broken it. Multifactor productivity has reduced from trend 2.7% to a mere 1.1%.  Their only success has been to increase the number of people in work. 

This will not be simply a short sharp recession as Cullen spins, it is a deterioration with long term consequences.  Labour have milked high commodity prices and increased worked hours for the growth in the Economy over the last 5 years.  The benefit of increased working hours can only increase growth once.  The next government will struggle to keep that high nominal level of employment.  International Commodity prices cannot be relied on to keep increasing exponentially.  Evidence shows they have tanked. 

The only way that the people of New Zealand can become wealthier in the long term is to work more productively. 

The following table shows the Compound Annual Growth Rates of various productivity factors.  Labour have had power since Nov 99, effectively March 2000 on being the closest year before they got organised to start breaking things. 

The first few years of National control in the early 90's were marked by measures taken to control serious fiscal problems inherited from the out of control last year of Labour.  Statistics NZ marks 1993 as a change.  The growth in productivity started then.  At issue is what Labour has done to the trend they inherited from National.  I have also shown the full 10 years of National for comparison.

So making the comparison of the last 5 years under Labour vs the previous 7 under National we see the damage done. Labour have achieved only 1.5% growth in Labour productivity and 1.1% in multifactor productivity.  National achieved an exceptional 3.1% growth in Labour productivity and 2.7% in multifactor productivity.

March year	Productivity indexes
	Labour	Capital	Multifactor
	Index
1988	786	1000	858
1990	863	928	886
2000	1136	1032	1094
2005	1224	1060	1155
2005 vs 2000	1.5%	0.5%	1.1%
2000 vs 1990	2.8%	1.1%	2.1%
2000 vs 1993	3.1%	2.0%	2.7%
2005 vs 1988	2.6%	0.3%	1.8%

These are damning statistics.  The current recession, The blown out current account deficit and the sabotage of Productivity growth.

All the spin on riding the Growth wave is just meaningless twaddle.

The detailed data presented by NZ statistics over such a long time frame offered a genuine opporutnity to measure this governments performance.  Measurement has got better.  I challenge all those bloggers and commentators supporting this government to justify this appalling set of statistics.

The Productivity Statistics (1988–2005). show the true reality of the damage helengrad has done to the New Zealand Economy.  They inherited a steadily growing economy with excellent growth in productivity and they have broken it. Multifactor productivity has reduced from trend 2.7% to a mere 1.1%.  Their only success has been to increase the number of people in work. 

This will not be simply a short sharp recession as Cullen spins, it is a deterioration with long term consequences.  Labour have milked high commodity prices and increased worked hours for the growth in the Economy over the last 5 years.  The benefit of increased working hours can only increase growth once.  The next government will struggle to keep that high nominal level of employment.  International Commodity prices cannot be relied on to keep increasing exponentially.  Evidence shows they have tanked. 

The only way that the people of New Zealand can become wealthier in the long term is to work more productively. 

The following table shows the Compound Annual Growth Rates of various productivity factors.  Labour have had power since Nov 99, effectively March 2000 on being the closest year before they got organised to start breaking things. 

The first few years of National control in the early 90's were marked by measures taken to control serious fiscal problems inherited from the out of control last year of Labour.  Statistics NZ marks 1993 as a change.  The growth in productivity started then.  At issue is what Labour has done to the trend they inherited from National.  I have also shown the full 10 years of National for comparison.

So making the comparison of the last 5 years under Labour vs the previous 7 under National we see the damage done. Labour have achieved only 1.5% growth in Labour productivity and 1.1% in multifactor productivity.  National achieved an exceptional 3.1% growth in Labour productivity and 2.7% in multifactor productivity.

March year	Productivity indexes
	Labour	Capital	Multifactor
	Index
1988	786	1000	858
1990	863	928	886
2000	1136	1032	1094
2005	1224	1060	1155
2005 vs 2000	1.5%	0.5%	1.1%
2000 vs 1990	2.8%	1.1%	2.1%
2000 vs 1993	3.1%	2.0%	2.7%
2005 vs 1988	2.6%	0.3%	1.8%

These are damning statistics.  The current recession, The blown out current account deficit and the sabotage of Productivity growth.

All the spin on riding the Growth wave is just meaningless twaddle.

The detailed data presented by NZ statistics over such a long time frame offered a genuine opporutnity to measure this governments performance.  Measurement has got better.  I challenge all those bloggers and commentators supporting this government to justify this appalling set of statistics.

The fathers genetic role ends at conception. Discuss.

Xavier - where are you for a biological explanation when you are needed.  CBTP posted a femislanted perspective on Mothers Day and I felt the need to comment. .

Maybe it should be a crime to raise a child without a father. Open your eyes and see the social damage caused by the lack of positve male role models and a state that actively battles to support a woman keeping a child away from a father.

Debate this either way. The way you are thinking as you read this, which is that I am insisting nuclear family is best and mother should stay with a violent father or as I meant it, which is that a child has a right to the attention & love of both parents. They provide different strengths.

• Insistence on naming a father on a birth certificate
• Shared custody being the norm rather than an oddity when family court is involved
• Changing the law so that fathers are not simply a source of money and child support becomes something divisive and a weapon to be used by either party.

A few exchanges lead to this extraordinary statement from one of the men on the thread:

The genetic role ends at conception. That's it. All other information imparted by the paternal father after that point good, bad or otherwise is optional - and certainly not genetic.

Xavier would provide a far more scientific & eloquent slapdown, and he would be from the left side of the political spectrum.

The patriarchal policy of a fringe church is just not relevant to state intrusion in the family.  You may have a religious problem but that is no reason for that to be inflicted on men in general.

Someone who has no children cannot understand the bond.  As a proxy, imagine that the state suddenly decreed that you should not see your mother.  After all, the mother's role ends at birth.  Clearly a nonsense.

The genetic influence extends far beyond birth.  the fathers advocates -"whingers" referred to are driven by instinct implanted firmly within their genetic makeup.  The same thing that makes adoptive children seek out their parent.

These men are not women hating.  They may well hate their former partner but to simply label them whingers is to completely misunderstand what is going on.  It is this kind of idiocy that supports the state removing women from the role of supporting their child.  As I have posted there seems to be a wilful blindness towards any beneficial father particpation in the upbringing of a child.

Fran O'Sullivan: Gutless police give up on party spending rorts

An excellent piece from Fran O'Sullivan: Gutless police give up on party spending rorts. After my recent brickbats, consider this a bouquet.

Detective Inspector Harry Quinn - the chief police officer on this task - opined that a proven breach could ultimately impact upon the "integrity of last year's election". It was concerns over the "integrity of last year's election" that prompted then Chief Electoral Officer David Henry to call police in to investigate what appeared to be (and still does) flagrant Electoral Act breaches by Labour and National after the parties ignored pre-election warnings against exceeding their publicity funding limits.

There is clearly a greater degree of separation required between the power to appoint members of law enforcement and the judiciary and the executive.

It is not just about being fair, it is also about being seen to be fair.  And when there is such a widespread condemnation of lack of police action there is clearly a problem with the second let alone the first. The only mildly plausible argument for not having pursued would be the thought that since both major parties were probably guilty the only impact would be to reduce the public confidence in the political system.  This is precisely the wrong approach.  There are many New Zealanders who have seen H1 escape prosecution time after time.  that has reduced confidence in the legal system as a whole.  Cabinet are above the law?  They should not be.

The question is how to deal with it. H1 & H2 are in the position of power and do not understand the issue let alone consider they should do anything about it.  The only solution is a change of government and a clear message from the voter that they want judicial independence.  National might be spurred to reduce their own power and increase the level of independence of the judiciary so that these abuses of power are punished not overlooked.