by frog
Published in THE ISSUES by frog on Sun, May 13th, 2012
Tags: general debate
General debate, May 13, 2012
Published: May 13, 2012
Comment via Facebook
141 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Nice eye-gouge from Garner on the unctuous Tony Ryall on The Nation.
http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/garner-pins-ryall-on-debt.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Depo-Provera increases cancer
Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett was recently in the news saying that the long acting contraceptive Depo-Provera was perfectly safe after announcing that female beneficiaries would be “offered” the medication by WINZ officers.
However a recent study undertaken by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Researcher Center found that when women use depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera), a progestin-only form of birth control, for a year or more, their breast cancer risk may be increased 2.2-fold.
95% of those assessed showed at least a 1.2 fold increase.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Hey Jackal, all female contraception increases the risk of cancer and everyone on the left is ok with that.
Get with the program son!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
I’m no techie, but this seems astoundingly incompetent when a site is supposed to be accesible to community groups with limited funds.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0 (+10)
Why can’t we have a New Zealand “Hard Talk” with a capable and truly informed interviewer?
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/paul-holmes-needs-to-go.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Jackal says “34% of the population reside in mesh blocks decile 9 and 10. I have categorically proven that photonz1.”
Duh!
The decile map and graph of NZ has even numbers of people as practical in each decile (just over 400,000 people in each decile).
To be exact, Decile 10 (most deprived) has 9.8% of the population, decile 9 has exactly 10%.
Decile 1 (wealthiest) has 10.3% of the NZ population, decile 2 and 3 each have 10.2%.
The graph notes even say that each decile has 10% of the NZ population.
Some areas have more people in rich deciles. Some areas have more people in poor deciles.
You take figures from one poor area (Manuka)then say that is categorical proof that the whole country is the same.
Likewise, Gregor’s equally silly claims that poorer deciles (each containing 10% of the population) have more people in them than higher deciles (which surprise surprise, contain 10% of the population).
It’s really very, very simple. A decile is 10% of the population.
If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a decile.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Photonz1
We’ve already had this debate and you lost. Please learn what ordinal means.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
No jackal – you made a complete idiot of yourself trying to claim that the poorest 20% of the population contains 34% of the population.
You still are.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
It costs the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars just in direct benefits to keep a teenage mum on the DPB until her child reaches high school.
Combine that with a report from Ministry fo Social Development – quote
“Compared to mothers aged over 25 years, mothers were 11 times more likely to kill their children if aged under 17 years, and nine times more likely if aged between 17 and 19 years”
Combine that with one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the OECD.
And surprise, surprise, one of the highest child abuse rates in the OECD.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
photonz1
Can you link to where you’ve gained this data? I can also not find any note in the 2009 mortality report that says 10% of the NZ population is represented in each decile. I think you are making this up. The decile scale they have used is ordinal and not interval photonz1. It is based on areas (with a small variance of population) with there being more areas showing impoverishment than wealth. Hence there being more children born into low decile (poorer) areas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
For gods sake jackal – stop being so stupid and find out what a decile is!!!
EVEN YOUR LINK has a graph that shows 400,000 people each of ten deciles.
And you can look up the definition of ordinal scale while your there because it’s obvious you’ve got that wrong as well.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
@photonz1
Some supplementary notes for you:
There are 39,300 mesh blocks in New Zealand, which have an average of 110 people (source Wiki, 2001 data) in each / median of 87 (source ODI, 2006 data).
From Stats NZ:
“The Social Deprivation Index is calculated at meshblock level, and built up to the relevant geographic scale using weighted average census usually resident population counts….Note that the deprivation index applies to areas rather than individuals who live in those areas.”
From the Office of Disability Issues – the best raw numbers I could find to hand and aggregated to form total populations [disabled + non disabled per band, 2006 numbers]:
Dec 1 & 2: 945,700
Dec 3 & 4: 881,200
Dec 5 & 6: 799,900
Dec 6 & 7: 710,900
Dec 8 & 9: 616,500
Unspecified : 2,100
Note: ODI admit their numbers might be a bit off due to rounding errors, which I calculated to about 2000 individuals over a total pop of 3,954,200, but it’s nominal when you look at the total numbers.
Obviously we can’t tell from this the discrete numbers as they have been grouped but even if we were to arbitrarily divide by 2, the populations per area decile are clearly not the same.
Interestingly if you are to take ODI numbers for the total age band of 15-44 and (highly unscientifically) halve it to represent indicative breeding age women, Dec 1-2 and Dec 9-10 have populations of 177k and 129k respectively.
ODI also comment “Note that the index is based on data referring to the average socioeconomic circumstances of the whole population of a meshblock, not to individuals. Therefore caution is needed when interpreting NZDep data.”
On the flipside, I will note that you are correct that we cannot extrapolate the decile 9/10 discrete population numbers from Counties/Manukau across the whole country.
Clearly there are more poor people in Manukau than Queenstown as you have pointed out and thus proportionally, more decile 9 and 10 meshblocks.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1
Do you mean the link to Myth-busting rightwing prejudices? It shows nothing of the sort. The Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee do not say that it is an interval decile scale photonz1. The Ministry of health say it’s an ordinal decile scale. In layman’s terms that means each decile from 1 to 10 can represent any amount of the population.
Gregor
However it is indicative of the incorrect assumption that people in poor areas are having more children. People in some of the poorest areas are having less than the national average of children. Extrapolating that into richer areas would likely compound the disproportionality of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee’s incorrect scaling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
@ jackal
Agreed. I was merely pointing out that photonz1 had a point and that broad extrapolation across a total population, especially when dealing with socio-economic factors, is risky.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Gregor – you are funny. You are now extrapolating disability numbers to try to prove that some groups of 10% of the population are not in fact 10%.
By the time you evenly divide up 43,000 meshblocks of around 100 people each, you have even deciles of 10% of the population, measured to within a fraction of 1%. (there are actually fractionally higher numbers of people in the wealthier deciles)
Even Jackal linked to the graph which shows the same numbers of people in every decile.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Jackal says “The Ministry of health say it’s an ordinal decile scale. In layman’s terms that means each decile from 1 to 10 can represent any amount of the population.”
Completely wrong.
Ordinal simply means in order. If decile 1 is least deprived and 10 is most deprived, then the other numbers from 1-10 are in order from least to most deprived. They are an ordinal scale.
Just look at the glossary on YOUR OWN LINK (the one that has a graph that shows the population is the same in each decile)
“Ordinal scale – A measurement scale having a natural ordering, such as ‘most’ to ‘least’ deprived.”
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
photonz1
Ordinal scaling indicates the relative position of items, but not the magnitude of difference.
Disabled + non disabled people in this case represent the population of New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal – your stupidity know no bounds – you’ve already given a link to the Index of Deprivation which has the graph with the same population in each decile.
Also from the index, % of NZ population in each decile, 1 being least deprived and 10 being most deprived.
1 – 10.3%
2 – 10.2%
3 – 10.2%
4 – 10%
5 – 9.9%
6 – 9.9%
7 – 9.9%
8 – 9.8%
9 – 10%
10 – 9.8%
Over 40,000 meshblocks with an average of 87 people each have been divided up into deciles,to get as close as possible to 1/10th of the population in each decile.
This is really simple stuff. It’s not rocket science – it’s not even primary school maths.
Deciles are 10%. That’s why they’re called deciles.
If they’re not 10%, then they’re not a decile.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
@photonz1
You are now extrapolating disability numbers to try to prove that some groups of 10% of the population are not in fact 10%.
I’m not extrapolating anything. I’m using raw numbers:
source: http://www.odi.govt.nz/resources/research/outcomes-for-disabled-people/nz-dep.html
They could be completely wrong I suppose but they are the numbers I used, so absolutely, if they are wrong, then I am wrong.
By the time you evenly divide up 43,000 meshblocks of around 100 people each, you have even deciles of 10% of the population, measured to within a fraction of 1%. (there are actually fractionally higher numbers of people in the wealthier deciles)
As I stated meshblocks have an average of 110, not an identical population. It’s not the number that is important but the word ‘average’.
Even rolled up to approximate deciles they wont be all the same – statistical nitpicking I know but I wanted to clear that up. There will be a variation.
I think the confusion is more about the issue of relative wealth here.
Though it’s only one factor, I can’t find in terms of wealth approximately what the deciles equate to, for instance:
a) What income is decile 1 based upon – i.e. is it a band of band of $0-5000 or $0-10000?)
b) What is the income interval between deciles? – I’m pretty sure it wont be regular)
c) How do the deciles relate to median and average wage? – are they skewed to the left or right for instance and if so, which deciles fall below the average?
This is the info that paints the actual picture, not brad brush strokes around deciles.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
* broad brush stokes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
photonz1
If it was an interval decile you would be half right. You can also have five interval deciles of 20% for instance. However it’s an ordinal decile scale. Why can’t you get that through that thick rightwing skull of yours?
Gregor
Although I’m rather bored with this topic, table 2 (page 24) of the NZDep2006 classes household income below $13,232 making up 5% of the people surveyed are the most deprived. The scale goes up to decile 5 at $23,797 per household still considered to be deprived. From $23,805 to $33,888 and above is considered not to be deprived.
You might note that there’s around 28 different scores incorporated into decile 10, while only two incorporated into decile 1.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Jackal shows more ignorance “You can also have five interval deciles of 20% for instance”
Wrong – those are quintiles (can you guess where the name comes from??? No – probably not).
If it’s not 10% of the population, then it’s not a decile.
Gregor – deprivation is based not just on income, but also, house ownership, employment, qualifications, living space, access to communication and transport, etc.
And you’re right – the gap between deciles 2-7 or even 8 is not great. The gap to the most deprived two deciles and the least deprived one deiles is much greater.
And it is a relative measurement. You could give everyone in NZ $1 million, and you’d still have 10% of the population in each decile.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
I’m wondering whether the confusion around deciles and what they represent was a result of me incorrectly wording something before and posing a poor example, which has resulted in us chewing up 2 threads and boring the shit out of everyone else (also not counting that we all seem to be using different data sources!)
I think I covered it above though:
a) the decile allocation of an individual isn’t important so much as the factors within that decile – is there a wide spread or clustering? – i.e in the least most relatively deprived 10%, is the population all under an income of 10k or is the upper limit 30k?
This is relevant to photonz1′s original premise that 13.8% or births fall into decile 10. If there is a high range of income (admittedly unlikely) then this tells a different story from a low range. What is doesn’t tell us is causality vs correlation.
(b)are the relative intervals between deciles consistent (income banding by 10k increments for instance). This is probably the most important as if there is not much difference between deciles 8,9 and 10 for example in terms of average income, while the population represented is approx 30% as photonz1 states, the relative wealth of that 30% is lower.
That’s what I was trying to get across earlier anyway and I hope it finally makes sense if it didn’t earlier!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Gregor says “I’m wondering whether the confusion around deciles …”
But it’s not confusing – it’s very, very simple.
Each decile is 10% of the population.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Keys radio therapy
Today, Prime Minister of New Zealand accused the media of becoming more aggressive, hostile, and antagonistic towards his Government…
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
The stench of corruption
Not only was Banks lying when he initially claimed that the reports into the undeclared donations were “mostly bullshit.” He in fact requested money from Kim Dotcom on more than one occasion, saying he would “be a very good friend once in government [because Banks] would have the power.”
Banks is also claiming that Dotcom told him to “go get fucked as your Government has caused me too much trouble,” which the NZ Herald reported as happening in July. Documents show that Dotcom then arranged an expensive upgraded hotel room with all the trimmings in Dec 2011 and gifted the now beleaguered Act party “leader” an expensive gift basket with a note of friendship. The stench from Banks’ corruption couldn’t be worse.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
But it’s not confusing – it’s very, very simple.
Each decile is 10% of the population.
Sure. As far as I’m concerned you’ve covered that and that statistically, the difference is minor between decile populations, but it’s a sideshow.
It’s what that decile represents in relation to other deciles is what’s important, right?
As you have said, if everyone is a millionaire then the decile scale is academic. The same would apply if everyone earned $100 per annum. It doesn’t contribute anything meaningful.
However, if (purely taking income as a proxy for relative deprivation) the least deprived decile is anyone earning 100k+, the next is anyone earning over 50k-100k, the next is 25k-50k and remaining 70% of the population is sub 25k, that tells us quite a bit about or society.
That is what I’m aiming at – understanding the magnitude of difference between deciles.
What the decile system doesn’t tell us is, if we assume 13% births in the most deprived decile as pretty standard per annum, are the same 13% having more and more kids thus entrenching their poverty or is it spread over the population within that decile? Further, does the same spread apply to the other deciles?
To my mind, that would then describe what that 13% of live births to the most deprived parts of our society actually means.
My gut feel (based on the own observation of my peers who I’m pretty cetain fall into the least deprived bucket), is that 2-4 kids per family is pretty standard, but that would also mean a lot of professional couples are choosing not to have kids if the population only makes up 8% of growth.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/paratas-education-plans-worrying.html?spref=fb
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Here’s a good article by Catherine Woulfe about the fallout from Colin Craig’s comments on promiscuity. Even if the unscientific Durex survey (PDF) is right, the days of thinking sex is inherently bad should be long gone.
Was meant to link to her more recent article here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/blogs/procrastinator/6924312/The-word-slapper-hurts
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Jackal thinks “You can also have five interval deciles of 20%”.
*snigger*
With stats skill like that, Jackal could get a job as a CTU economist!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
OK smarty pants, can you explain why you cannot have D = (n+1/5)th ?
Can you also explain why the 2009 mortality report gives a scale of 1 (wealthy) to 10 (impoverished), when in the schooling system that uses the same Ministry of Health report to indicate the extent to which a school draws its students from low socio-economic communities says Decile 1 schools are the 10% of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, while Decile 10 schools are the 10% of schools with the lowest proportion of these students?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Jackal asks “OK smarty pants, can you explain why you cannot have D = (n+1/5)th”
Because a decile, by definition, is 10% – not 20% (that’s a quintile).
That’s like saying there’s no reason why you can’t re-name a quarter pizza as half a pizza.
It’s really very very simple.
Jackal asks “Can you also explain ….”
Because a decile is merely 10%. Deciles can be aranged from 1-10 where 1 is least deprived and 10 is most deprived, or where 1 is least affluent and 10 is most affluent.
Or from 1-10 where 1 is the 10% of people whose names start will letters closest to the start of the alphabet, and 10 are those with names starting with letters closest to the end of the alphabet, or vice versa.
(with deciles 2-9 in an ordinal scale of course)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
photonz1, I was actually asking Misanthropic Curmudgeon.
So I should have just said QU instead of D then… stop the bus. They’re all quantiles btw photonz1.
Since you’re being helpful for once, wouldn’t you have the range of the quantile dependent on the amount of items being measured and the subtlety of the data involved?
ie for larger populations V = (n+1/20)th (n=∑ƒ)? I guess a population of 4.1 million in 2006 isn’t considered large.
The debate isn’t about the 1 to 10 scale, it’s about what each of those percentages represent. From wikipedia on statistical ordinal data:
Comprehend yet?
For the interval system to have worked, the nzdep2006 would have needed to arrange the deprivation data they gathered relative to the population surveyed, a near imposible task. The other problem with this research is that it’s even less specific to the target group than the research Gregor mentions, hence the very large discrepancy.
Along with a number of other statistical anomalies I’ve already mentioned, I don’t think it’s advisable to base any policy decisions on it. You can keep trying to convince me otherwise if you like photonz1.
About those percentages above, could you link to where you gained that data please?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Jackal says “So I should have just said QU instead of D then… stop the bus. They’re all quantiles btw photonz1.”
That’s like says 10% and 20% are no different because they are all percentages.
Face it Jackal – saying a decile could be 20% is just like trying to tell people a decade could have 20 years in it.
Jackal says “Along with a number of other statistical anomalies I’ve already mentioned, I don’t think it’s advisable to base any policy decisions on it. ”
So you think extra school funding based on deciles should be scraped?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I didn’t say that photonz1. The argument is about a scale that represents how many children are being born into impoverished families. At the crux of the debate is the fact that lots of children are being born into poverty in New Zealand. You think this is because poor people are having more children, while I think this is because there are more poor people in general. National’s solution is to try to stop the poor having children. However the real solution is to raise those families out of poverty… simple!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Jackal says “I didn’t say that photonz1. ”
You claimed repeatedly (and hilariously claimed to have categorically proven) that 34% of the NZ population NZ is in the bottom 20% (or 2 deciles).
Then you claimed ““You can also have five interval deciles of 20% for instance”
You may as well try to convince people that decades have 20 years, or two decades have 34 years.
Jackal says “You think this is because poor people are having more children, ”
They are. The numbers show 10,000 births into the poorest decile and half that into the top deciles.
And the rate for teenage pregnancy is around 10x or 1000% higher in the poorest decile compared to the top decile. 6.8 births per 1000 girls vs 66 per 1000 in the poorest deciles.
Jackal says “National’s solution is to try to stop the poor having children. However the real solution is to raise those families out of poverty… simple”
At quarter of a million dollars to support each teenager on the DPB until her kid is at high school, you’ll run out of money long before you stop them being poor.
And the reason these teenagers are on the DPB and poor is because they are making stupid decisions. And more money won’t stop them doing that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Photonz1, I do hope you watched Campbell’s piece on child poverty on TV3 this evening.
Since you are so good with statistics you would be aware of the median length of time people remain on the DPB and you would then realize there is no huge crisis.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
photonz1
Which just goes to show that you shouldn’t try to join two sets of different statistics together. I have no real problem with the New Zealand Index of Deprivation 2006 (NZDep2006) apart from it being based on outdated info. It also lacks subtlety and does not include people in sparsely populated areas.
Where the problem lies is with the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee simply plonking more recent birth statistics onto that research.
Can an old man aged 65 have a child photonz1?
There are numerous reasons why the graph you promote as evidence to have prejudices is wrong! I have mentioned a few, here’s another one: The wage difference between men and women.
Women get paid on average 12.8% less than their male counterparts. Unless you’re arguing that a persons income does not dictate what areas they live, it stands to reason that women are more likely to be living in poorer areas opposed to men who get a higher wage, because they’re simply able to afford to live in wealthier areas. There is also a difference between the remuneration a young person receives as opposed to older people.
The solution therefore is to equalize wages so that they’re not indicative of a sexist or agist society.
On a decile scale of least to most bored of this debate and your insults photonz1, I would have to say 10. What I would rather here about is how exactly National is going to reduce the amount of poverty in New Zealand? Clearly more money going to where it’s needed is a part of that solution.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
PS Are you ever going to link to where you gained the percentage data from in your May 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM comment?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Criminal A stole $6000 dollars worth of clothing, had his name and face all over the news and was sentenced to two years imprisonment.
Criminal B stole an undisclosed amount, had his name suppressed, wasn’t put before a judiciary to see if evidence was admissible or not and got off scott free.
Criminal A is Maori and comes from the general public while criminal B was a police officer and likely to be Pakeha. The Police’s “ethical standards” in this matter are a complete joke!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
There is much potential to do harm to professional relationships and children’s learning with imposing a system of performance pay on teachers:
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/performance-pay-for-teachers.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Dave Kennedy says “Since you are so good with statistics you would be aware of the median length of time people remain on the DPB and you would then realize there is no huge crisis.”
Teenagers who go on the DPB stay on it for an AVERAGE of over 7 years.
We have the second highest teenage birth rate in the first world.
And surprise surprise, we have some of the worst rates IN THE WORLD for some of the problems associated with teeage births (including vastly higher rates of child abuse, suicide, substance abuse, depresion, poverty, violence, and being unqualified).
And you say there is “no huge crisis”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Jackal says Clearly more money going to where it’s needed is a part of that solution.”
More money going to people who make stupid decisions doesn’t stop them making stupid decisions.
It’s just money down the drain. Better off spending money to help stop them making stupid decisions in the first place.
$300 spent on free long term contraception can -
- save quarter of a million dollars on a DPB benefit
- stop a girl from failing her education (900% more likely with a teenage pregnancy)
- stop a baby growing up in poverty
- vastly reduce the chances of substance abuse (200% more likely), family violence, depresion and suicide (300% more likely)
- reduce the chances of the whole cycle happening over and over (the MAJORITY, that’s the MAJORITY of teenage dads, were born to teenage mums.
And it will reduce chances of bad outcomes for their children who will be -
-250% more likely to quit school,
-200% more likely to be long term unemployed,
-300% more likely to be a violent offender
-250% more likely to become a teenage parent and start the whole cycle all over again.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Jackal – any arguement about skewed demographics between deciles is completely meaningless when you compare pregnancy rates PER 1000 decile 1 teenage girls, to prenancy rates per 1000 decile 10 teenage girls.
Because when you do that, instead of the poorest decile having twice the birth rate, it blows out to nearly 1000%/10x greater.
That’s 66 births PER 1000 teenage girls in the poorest decile and less than 7 births PER 1000 teenage girls in the least deprived decile.
Even when you compare quintiles, the most deprived 20% of teenage girls still have a birth rate 650%/6.5x higher than the least deprived 20%.
We know we have the second highest teenage birth rate in the first world.
We know from child abuse statistics that children are 900% more likely to be killed if their mother first gave birth as a teenager.
We know we have close to the worst child abuse statistics in the world.
And your solution to the problem? – pretend/argue that it doesn’t exist.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Are you ever going to link to where you gained the percentage data from in your May 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM comment photonz1?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Photonz1, I did say median, not average, so your response was meaningless. For instance the average income in New Zealand is above $50,000 and yet the median is only $27,000 which means half of all new Zealanders earn$27,000 or less. Median gives the more accurate measure: http://www.conceptstew.co.uk/PAGES/mean_or_median.html
I would never say that we shouldn’t be concerned about the numbers of young teenage mothers but in terms of economic liability we should be more concerned at the rocketing costs of superannuation. This harping on about the DPB as a major fiscal bind is utter crap (and still only a fraction of the cost of one unnecessary motorway).
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Your country needs you
If TVNZ7 gets pulled, New Zealand will have lost 1/3 of the free to air network. You can help save our public broadcasting service…
Please sign the Save TVNZ 7 Online Petition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Sprout says “For instance the average income in New Zealand is above $50,000 and yet the median is only $27,000 which means half of all new Zealanders earn$27,000 or less.”
Which is a load of misleading nonsense because in includes people who don’t even work like students and housewives and people who only work part time.
Sprout says “This harping on about the DPB as a major fiscal bind is utter crap ”
That shows a total lack of understanding of the problem.
A quarter of a million dollars (or a lifetimes tax for someone on the average wage) to pay for a benefit to pay for the DPB for a pregnant teenager until her kid reaches high school – that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
The bigger costs are not just big, but MASSIVE increases in all sorts of disfunction including substance abuse, violence, child abuse (900% above average) etc etc. See the list above from 11.23pm.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Jackal _really_ needs to work on his maths (and it lends weight to my suggestion that with his dodgy maths, he’d make a great CTU economist) by saying “If TVNZ7 gets pulled, New Zealand will have lost 1/3 of the free to air network.”
Jackal, on free-to-air channel numbers, there are TV1, TV2, TV3, TV7, and Prime, as well as various regional channels like Triangle, CTV, and whatever. Even if you exclude the regional channels and fudge it to ignore infrastructure, it still not 1/3 of the channel count. 1/5 at most.
Your maths sucks, eh Jackal?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Shane Jones for the chop?
If Labour wants to see the same growth in support they must have the same principles as those adhered to by the Greens…
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Wow Jackal – I back you 100% on something (TVNZ7).
As for the percentages in each decile in NZ (10% +/- 0.3%) – That’s in the 2006 Depreciation Index (the same index you linked to, but a different document)
The graph on page 11 gives the numbers and percentage of NZ population in each decile, and as you’ll see, there are around 400,000 people and 10% in every decile.
http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/nzdep2006_text.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@photonz1
A quarter of a million dollars (or a lifetimes tax for someone on the average wage) to pay for a benefit to pay for the DPB for a pregnant teenager until her kid reaches high school – that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
This particular instance could well be true.
The counter position around the scale of the issue would be, given the the situation you describe, how many DPB beneficiaries actually fall into this category vs the average?
Criteria:
1. Sole parent (could conceivably be a man) has a child between the ages of 16 and 19 (DPB eligibility starts @ 16 apparently)
2. Sole parent’s circumstances (relationship status, DPB eligibility) stay static or worsen over the intervening 13 years
I don’t know but suspect it’s quite a small subset given from the MSD factsheet:
- Working age (18-64yrs) claimants @ March 2012 = 113,005
- Claimants aged 18-19 = 2.7% (3051)
- Proportion of working-age DPB, current benefit 10y+ = 9.7%
- Proportion of working-age DPB, any benefit 10y+ = 14.4%
- Clients who had received a Domestic Purposes Benefit continuously for 10 years or more made up 0.4% of the total working-age population at the end of March 2012.
So unscientifically, let’s assume that the ‘new teen parent’ population increases by 1500 p/a to a max of 6000 (16-19 age group).
If we are to take MSDs stats, at worst 14% of these people will be on some form of benefit for 10 years or more (Remainder: 26% between 4 and 10 years, 40% between 1 and 4 years, and 20% less than 1 year).
So while this population doesn’t count anyone who has a kid from 20yr old onward, the specific ‘Teen on the DPB until their kid hits high school costing taxpayers 250k’ demographic subset is, thankfully, quite small.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Gregor asks “…how many DPB beneficiaries actually fall into this category vs the average?”
One third of DPB recipients started as teen parents, and they stay on the DPB on average for many years longer than older single parents.
You may think the scale of the problem is small, but it’s big enough for us to have just about the worst teenage birth rate and child abuse rate in the OECD.
From cyfs “Compared to mothers aged over 25 years, mothers were 11 times more likely to kill their children if aged under 17 years, and nine times more likely if aged between 17 and 19 years.”
Gregor says “So unscientifically, let’s assume that the ‘new teen parent’ population increases by 1500 p/a to a max of 6000 (16-19 age group).”
Try over 300% higher than that.
Ministry of Social Development says “In 2009, there were 4,670 births to women under 20 years in New Zealand. Approximately two thirds of these were to 18 and 19 year olds.”
So your number of 1500 would nearly cover the younger girls – those aged 13,14,15,16 and 17 years old.
We are creating thousands of children every year who will go onto have their own severe problems. HALF of all children born to a teenage mother will go onto have severe problems like long term unemployment, violence, or become teenage parents themselves.
We have a production line mass producing babies who will have severe social problems.
How will Greens ever expect to find solutions to serious problems when they turn their heads the other way and contuinually argue that it doesn’t even exist?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
photonz1
That’s no surprise… what is surprising is that you admit it.
There is no graph on page 11. The document in no way explains the percentages you’ve provided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Jackal says “The document in no way explains the percentages you’ve provided.”
It shows EXACTLY the percentages I’ve provided (the graph is figure 1).
On my computer it comes up as page 11 of 35 on the pdf.
Jackal says “That’s no surprise… what is surprising is that you admit it.”
Unlike you, I support or disagree with issues on their merit – not dependent on who proposes them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
photonz1
So you’ll be going along to one of those meetings, and perhaps supporting a political party that shares your views on TVNZ7 then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m going to watch with interest the sentence handed down to ‘the accidental millionaire’ when compared to the finance company directors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal says “So you’ll be going along to one of those meetings, and perhaps supporting a political party that shares your views on TVNZ7 then?”
I signed the petition last week.
If the Greens campaign to save TVNZ7, I’ll back them.
I haven’t heard the Greens make a big noise about it. Have they been quiet, or did I miss it?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1
Not a part of Facebook then. You must be aware that Labour supports saving TV7 though? Good to see you supporting the opposition photonz1.
A better question to ask is who in their right mind doesn’t support public broadcasting? Oh that’s right, that party who thinks poor people should be kept in the dark.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
We already do support public TV. It’s called the Maori channel. How many channels of public Tv do you think we need?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal says “A better question to ask is who in their right mind doesn’t support public broadcasting? ”
I would think a huge number of people don’t support public broadcasting if it is judged by the amount of brainless crap we get fed on TV1 and 2.
From your comments it sounds like you are more concerned about backing sides, than what the issues are.
Do you want to debate intelligently, or cheerlead mindlessly?
I’ve heard very little from any political party about saving TYVNZ7. If it’s ONLY on facebook, it won’t be a very effective campaign. Instantly over half the population won’t know about it, cause they’re not on facebook, another 1/4 are not regular users, and of the remaining 1/4, most will be looking at other things.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
photonz1
TVNZ 7 is arguably the best free to air public broadcasting channel, and certainly beats many of the other players in terms of interesting local content. It’s loss would make your argument that public broadcasting in New Zealand is often just brainless crap even more indefensible.
I’m hardly a mindless cheerleader photonz1, as you might note from the debate on 1080 for instance.
That just says more about your scope of information gathering than it does about the effort people are putting into save TVNZ 7. It’s not just facebook where political parties have been expressing their positions concerning the loss of yet another public broadcasting channel, there’s news articles and blog posts on the subject just to name a couple of sources you seem to be ignoring.
The cause to save TVNZ 7 could of course do with more exposure, but the position of the Greens on the matter is not in question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Photonz, most of us support things on the basis of merit.
The meretricious nature of everything that National proposes however, leaves us with little choice but to oppose virtually everything they come up with.
The problem is not that there is no truth in some of the complaints about some people, but that there is no valid philosophy behind the policies that result from those complaints, nor any attempt to see a larger picture. National is run by and owned by, big money. It has no real principles except to protect and expand the advantages that big money currently enjoy. Which is why Greens can’t “go along and get along” with them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Groser promotes ecological disaster
I had to laugh while reading a speech given by Tim Groser yesterday in which he claims that people who promote localized food production and security of supply are acting instinctually and that not wanting to rely on other countries for food is rooted in people’s hunter and gatherer DNA, which is a little insane to say the least…
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Louis Crimp – Asshole of the Week
Intent on cutting their own heads off… Act are now derided throughout the land.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Searching for the perfect power company is like searching for the Holy Grail (the Monty Python version) and my coconut shells are wearing down rapidly…
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/power-companies-and-holy-grail.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Fonterra environmental bullies
I enjoy watching Rural Delivery in the weekends. They’ve been running stories recently about developments in farm effluent treatment systems, and this made me hopeful that we might finally see a reduction in the amount of pollution going into New Zealand waterways…
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
“BERL economist Ganesh Nana said the ‘mixed-ownership model’ (MoM) policy, as it stood, would worsen the Government’s deficit in the short term compared to a no-changes baseline scenario. That was because the Government would lose some of the dividend stream it received from the assets partially sold.
It would then take a number of years for new assets such as schools or broadband infrastructure to affect the Government’s tax take positively enough to cover that lost dividend stream.
In the long-term the Government’s annual deficit would return to the baseline scenario, but the Government’s net worth, total assets and debt ratio would be worse than the baseline, Nana said.”
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Not exactly a green issue, but if this news article is even half true, I reckon it sounds worse than promoting contraception for beneficiaries.
“A serial rapist who kept one of his teenage victims as a sex slave in a remote bush hut is expected to walk free from court because he has developed mild dementia”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6955816/Justice-denied-for-sex-slave
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/merrill-lynch-leopards-spots-and-mr-key.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Gregor – who would pay for a report like the BERL one that uses such looney assumptions, like
- the govt assets will forever pay an 8% dividend, when for the last five years they paid less than 3.5%
- that interest rates will remain at 4% for at least 15 years
- that the $6 billion the government recieves for the 1/2 asset sale, will not produce a single $1 of benefit to anyone for at least five years.
Even with such loopy assumptions, they only just managed to show a slight benefit in keeping the assets.
Remind me again who paid for such nonsense?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
The Wong connection
Key has struck while the media iron is hot but factual evidence is sparse…
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Photo. Still trying to spin privatisation as something other than the disaster it is, when even his own dodgy numbers show we will lose by it.
No matter how much he spins and wriggles he cannot say we have gained by privatisation. All he has to argue about is his reckoning, that the losses were smaller than we show.
Arguing about the amount privatisation has cost us, and will cost, us does not disguise the fact it still cost.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Photo. Still trying to spin privatisation as something other than the disaster it is, when even his own dodgy numbers show we will lose by it.
No matter how much he spins and wriggles he cannot say we have gained by privatisation. All he has to argue about is his reckoning, that the losses were smaller than we show.
Arguing about the amount privatisation has cost us, and will cost us, does not disguise the fact it still cost.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Kerry says “No matter how much he spins and wriggles he cannot say we have gained by privatisation.”
Wrong -read this.
We have gained by privatisation.
When telecom was privatised, the cost of toll calls halved within months.
I didn’t have to apply to get a new phone.
I didn’t have to go on a waiting list to get a new phone.
When NZ Railways was sold, the taxpayer stopped losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
It no longer was illegal to use a truck to go more than 150km.
We gained lots by privatisation.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Kerry – There are things the govt can probably do better than the private sector, and vice versa.
But your rose-tinted view of govt run SOEs is out of sync with reality. When you have a look at profit and loss for govt owned companies –
Kiwirail LOSES the taxpayer $1 BILLION every year
Genesis Energy has LOST money for the taxpayer 4 out of the last 6 years
Kordia has LOST the taxpayer money 6 out of the last 6 years
Landcorp has LOST the taxpayer money 3 out of the last 5 years
Meridian Energy has LOST the taxpayer money 3 out of the last 4 years
NZ Post has LOST the taxpayer money 3 out of the last 4 years
Kiwibank has LOST the taxpayer money 3 out of the last 4 years
Quotable Value has LOST the taxpayer money 3 out of the last 4 years
Public Trust has LOST the taxpayer money 8 out of the last 9 years
TVNZ has LOST the taxpayer money 9 out of the last 10 years
See page 15 of the following link to see how much we earn (overall we LOSE money and have done for years) from our various SOEs.
http://www.comu.govt.nz/resources/pdfs/ey-soe-epa-nov11.pdf
Why don’t you add up how much we make from ALL our SOEs,
- in 2011 we LOST nearly $900 million,
- in 2010 we LOST over $800 million,
- in 2009 we LOST over $1400 million.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Photonz
Anyone who considers the rail system as a profit maker as opposed to a service to the public deserves to be raped by “private enterprise”… repeatedly. This is what has happened – repeatedly and now you propose doing it AGAIN, because it suits your ideological precepts.
The problem is that you do not considering what government buys in these enterprises, only what it costs.
I have pointed out repeatedly that government is not business. You cannot apply those principles of short term profit and loss to it and get any justice out of it. A value that is absolutely NOT held in high regard by National and John Key.
Adding up the SOE losses as the global market tanked is sort of weird too. We lost several trillions of dollars globally, and there are few if any businesses that were not affected, public OR private, by the changes to the cost of capital in those years.
Closer reading of the Ernst and Young report shows that they set aside a number of things as not being “assets” which they clearly (in the text) identify as such.
I find that a bit disingenuous, but they are accountants, and applying their skills to the process of governing a country is fraught with hidden difficulties and missed considerations.
It is a damned poor country that measures its wealth in money.
Which will continue to be ENTIRELY true until we alter our money to be worth something real.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
BJ says “Anyone who considers the rail system as a profit maker as opposed to a service to the public deserves to be raped by “private enterprise”… repeatedly.”
I’ve been argueing for years against many here who think the Railways can be profitable.
Have you finally seen the light?
Transrail masssively lifted freight volumes from 8 million tonnes a year (when it was under govt control) up to 15 million tonnes per year, and still couldn’t make a go of it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
NZ Herald – “Meridian axes Mokihinui dam” and “We know that Labour and the Greens had it in their election manifesto – they are implacably opposed to the project,” and “This year Meridian abandoned plans to build a controversial wind farm in central Otago after spending nearly $9 million and in 2004, it dropped the $1.2 billion Project Aqua scheme on the Waitaki River after spending $95 million.”
There seems to be a common thread here.
And here I was stupidly thinking that Global Warming was the critical issue of our time that had to be urgently resolved and we had to reduce CO2 emissions as fast as possible.
Glad to hear that other things are really more important, such as a “dynamic landscape”.
Ok boys, the people have spoken, just click Huntly up another few notches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One of the reasons rail isn’t making a profit is because it’s undercut by trucking, which is subsidized by the public. If the trucking industry actually paid for the use and damage they cause to our roads, rail would be more profitable. This is because there’s around 10% of bulk goods that are currently transported by trucks instead of rail even though it’s more efficient to use rail.
National is also undertaking roading developments that are specifically designed so that trucking is used even more to transport bulk goods. The billions spent on this could be far better placed, and one of those areas would be to repair the damage caused to the rail network while it was privatized.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Photonz
I never claimed railroads were intended to make money.
Certainly not now, with the price of petrol and diesel suppressed, with no CO2 tax and no electrification of the trunk.
We will bless the foresight of those who kept the things or curse the folks who sold them off and closed them. The changes will come whether we wish them or not. It is the job of government to help us prepare.
There is a benefit to us to keep them. Not one that can be measured in money.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Still do not get it do you Photo.
All those things are infrastructure we need for a functioning economy and society. They still cost whether public or private.
Except they cost us more when they are private.
Kordia could have been paid for from a State owned Telco for one.
Your first two examples are laughable. Ascribing advances in technology to privatisation. The trucking distances were regulation. Nothing to do with who owned anything. Regulation we may need to enact again when the cost of imported fuel gets too high.
Roads make a net loss to the tax payer by the same accounting, a much larger one. Should we close them down and sell them off for housing?
Both shipping and rail would take over most long distance hauling from trucking if either were subsidised to the same extant as trucking.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Time we got rid of the SOE business model as well. Just disguised taxation. I suspect it was to make SOE’s as inefficient as NZ’s private sector, to justify sales.
Stop paying accountants, promoted beyound their competence level, millions to run them and give the control back to people who know what they are doing.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
The value of essential infrastructure is in the support it provides to a functioning country.
The true cost is what it would cost us if we don’t have it.
Which gives the extra downside of privatisation. If the private company decide sometime in the future, like Toll, or Air NZ, they can make more by asset stripping and closing them down then we have to pay to get it functional again.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Rail is 4 to 10 times more fuel efficient than trucks. Shipping is 30 times more efficient.
To put it in perspective; value of mineral fuel imports. Approx 2 billion/Quarter. http://www.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=289d7f73-e44a-4bb8-9c4a-398550c23e10
More than our net earnings from Dairy.
Total exports value for the same quarter. 11.5 billion. http://www.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=2d510548-0890-4786-a28c-b5c7986ccb60
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
The value of essential infrastructure is in the support it provides to a functioning country.
The true cost is what it would cost us if we don’t have it.
Well encapsulated, Kerry.
Photonz1 – on another thread touching this topic, I suggested a true measure of worth is the replacement value of any given asset rather than the nominal value (something which tends to be prone to ideology and speculation).
If all measurement of public good was purely formed on a cost-benefit analysis, it’s worth bearing in mind that we probably wouldn’t have a police force, a health system, education beyond primary level; in fact any of the principal services we take for granted in a ‘civilised’ society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal says “One of the reasons rail isn’t making a profit is because it’s undercut by trucking”
When the government owned it, and it was ILLEGAL to drive a truck over 150km, the railways STILL lost half a billion dollars every year.
Kerry says ” Ascribing advances in technology to privatisation. ”
Yeah right – immediately on privatisation toll calls halved, service levels went up enormously, phones became available without having to make an application and go on a waiting list – and this all happened because of a massive advance in technology that just by some amazing coincidence happened exactly the week telecom was privatised.
Do you realise how rediculous your claim sounds?
Take your blinkers off.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Happened the week telecom was privatised. Bullshit. I was there. It took years as exchanges and cabinets were replaced with digital exchanges. A process which had been started under State ownership.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
How much a year do roads lose, Photo? If you apply the same accounting principles?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Kerry asks “How much a year do roads lose, Photo? If you apply the same accounting principles?”
For years the money collected for roading through road user charges and fuel tax was considerably more than was ever spent on the roads.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Photo goes from bullshit to bollocks.
There are many more Roads than are funded from RUC’s and petrol tax. The large proportion of the road network funded by rates for one. Used for free by trucks.
And the subsidy for trucking from private motorists.
And soon the carbon debits we have to pay in truckings behalf.
And the exports we need to supply and the interest we have to pay on all that imported fuel.
And. for the RWNJ’s, the opportunity cost of not using the land occupied by roads for other things. Which they insist on applying to ports, but not roads.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Peters on propaganda
After all why spoil a good story with the facts?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@photonz1
Kerry says ” Ascribing advances in technology to privatisation. ”
Yeah right – immediately on privatisation toll calls halved, service levels went up enormously, phones became available without having to make an application and go on a waiting list….
You’ve been called on this claim before. It’s a poor example.
As Kerry correctly states, these efficiencies were a direct result of changes occurring from SOE corporatisation, not privatisation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Kerry – we’ve been spending a billion dollars a year mainly from user charges and petrol tax on roads – the same as we LOSE on the railways.
The value we get from the railways is appalling compared to what we get from the roads.
The roads carry 1000% more freight, 99% of the passenger traffic, are a network that’s 84,000km long (vs just 4000km), and go to 1000 times more places.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
And trucks still do not pay their share.
And roads are carrying more freight, not 1000% more by any means, because trucking is subsidised in many ways.
And the cost of roads is much more than a billion a year.
And you forgot the opportunity cost of all that land. Again!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Gender inequality in New Zealand
Did you know that women-owned new enterprises outperform men-owned enterprises and woman gain more tertiary qualifications in New Zealand than men? Despite this, woman on average earn $10,000 less per year than men. There’s no doubt that woman are getting a raw deal…
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Misanthropic Curmudgeon @ May 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Here is the equation:
The current amount of channels New Zealander’s are able to receive free to air from Analogue, UHF or Freeview receivers equates to an average of 11.6 channels per receiver (I have not included channels that people cannot receive).
Rounded up to account for people with multiple receivers = 12.
Amount of channels already lost 5 + 12 = 17. % change from 17 to 12 = 29.4%
Include the loss of TVNZ7 = 6 + 11 = 17. % change from 17 to 11 = 35.3%
I rounded this down to 33% to equate for variables such as regional broadcasting. I did not include SBS HD or TV3+1 as these are already broadcast.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Jackal:
Come on. “No doubt woman are getting a raw deal?” You need to go into MUCH greater detail before you can even begin to make that assertion.
To say; we should come away from a focus on equal gender outcomes, because the details and complexities relating to this issue are too subjective and unfathomable. Just stick with the basics. We should watch out for unacceptable discrimination and leave it at that. Otherwise we’ll just end up creating another grievance industry and the “grief” and the costs will never end. This country has infinitely better things to worry about.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Andrew Atkin
You’ve completely lost me there Andrew. How does reducing wage inequality between men and woman create a grievance industry, and what existing grievance industry are you talking about?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Jackal:
Ok it was a loose expression…except that if you want to force “equality” then that will probably involve the lawyers via personal grievance claims. What I mean is that it will become a never-ending social argument because there’s too much subjectivity in it all.
One point, Think of all the men doing high-stress jobs so their partners don’t have to. How about that for “inequality”? You get my point. Its all so wiffy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The thing you seem to have missed is that having a woman in a high powered job means that the business on average performs better than having a male… and yet they are paid less. I don’t think the so-called “grievance industry” you’re referring to would increase just because the government moved to promote wage equality. In fact it’s likely to decrease because there would be less inequality and therefore less reason for personal grievance claims.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Jackal:
It could go on forever. Our government should just focus on the real issues.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Australia looks better every day
This isn’t a zero budget, It’s a no hope no growth no brighter future budget… it’s an archaic return to failed ideologies of the past that will detrimentally impact on the already downtrodden budget… It’s an elitist budget designed to transfer even more wealth from those who can least afford it to those that don’t need it… It’s a penny pinching agist budget that will do nothing to get New Zealand back on its feet…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Jackal says “Australia looks better every day”
And it’s because of mining and drilling – two things you don’t want.
If you’re a qualified electrician, you can walk into a 10 day on / 10 day off job on a Bass Strait oil rig for A$350,000 per year.
I see you’ve done the same as Russel Norman, David Shearer and Winston Peters.
This mornings newspaper commented that if you took away the meaninless cliches from Norman, Shearer and Peters, there was nothing left – no intelligent comment on the budget from the opposition.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
@ photonz1
And it’s because of mining and drilling – two things you don’t want.
If you’re a qualified electrician, you can walk into a 10 day on / 10 day off job on a Bass Strait oil rig for A$350,000 per year.
So your suggestion is what exactly?
Magic up vast, easily accessible mineral and oil wealth and deliver it speedily via massive existing rail and port infrastructure to world markets where high prices can be commanded?
Let me know how that goes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
photonz1
Did Julia Gillard manage to implement that addition tax on the sector? They were putting up a decent fight to not pay their fair share last time I read… court action and funding the opposition and what not.
I don’t want mining and drilling if it comes at the expense of our environment photonz1. I’m all for progress and infrastructure development as long as it is safe. Curent technology means that mining and drilling isn’t, so I would rather that capital investment is put into more productive and safe areas.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Jackal – you say it looks better where all the mining and drilling going on, then say mining and drilling is bad.
Gregor says “Magic up vast, easily accessible mineral and oil wealth and deliver it speedily via massive existing rail and port infrastructure to world markets where high prices can be commanded?
Let me know how that goes.”
It’s already going very well in Taranaki, providing 5000 well paid jobs.
I talked to a guy last year who was trying to find 8000 workers for the construction of just one gas pipeline in Queensland.
And the proposals off the Otago coast have been estimated to require up to 10,000 workers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@photonz1
It’s already going very well in Taranaki, providing 5000 well paid jobs.
From the 2007 BERL Taranaki Industry Projections 2006-2026 report for Venture Taranaki:
4.2 Oil and gas sector
“The oil and gas sector directly employed 817 FTEs in the region in 2006. ”
“The oil and gas sector has a particularly high employment multiplier of 3.66. This means
that creating one additional FTE within the sector will result in a further 2.66 FTEs in the
region.”
That’s a bit off 5000 unless the industry has nearly doubled in size in the last 5 years – it may well have but I can’t find reference to it.
And the proposals off the Otago coast have been estimated to require up to 10,000 workers.
Like I say, when the oil is actually magicked up, then lets talk.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Gregor – Venture Taranaki gives much higher numbers than that “The benefits to the Taranaki region being the centre of the O&G industry are significant. Including indirect and induced effects, activity generated by the O&G industry contributes a total of $1.8 billion to the Taranaki region’s GDP and employs over 4,200 FTEs. Each project adds
further value with the construction of the last five
production plants adding a further $450 million and
employing over 6,300 people. Methanex and Ballance
are major companies located in the region directly as a
result of local gas production. These two petrochemical
companies contribute a further $180 million to the
region’s GDP and 870 FTEs.”
Even your report says 20% of all building work and 30% of all computer work in Taranaki is for the oil and gas industries.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Apache’s negligence under fire
What makes this so ridiculous is that Apache has tried to suppress information about the Varanus Island gas explosion that cost WA $3 billion because they say releasing it would “aid terrorist attacks on gas infrastructure.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Even your report says 20% of all building work and 30% of all computer work in Taranaki is for the oil and gas industries.
Sure, but that is covered by the 3.66 multiplier.
Again, not saying 5k job is an overstatement, just saying I can’t find any source that verifies it.
Call me a stickler
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Gregor asks “not to nitpick but have you got a cite for your quote from VT?”
Don’t be sorry for being skeptical – I see that as a good thing, whichever side you’re on.
Here is the Venture Taranaki report. Look at page 4, column 1, last paragraph, and column 2, top paragraph
http://www.pepanz.org.nz/pepanzDocuments/The%20Wealth%20Beneath%20our%20Feet.pdf
On page three you’ll also see another estimate of 7700 full time jobs (90% of these in Taranaki) and and ADDITIONAL 8700 jobs to build just 5 projects.
Last time I was in Taranaki there was noticable traffic heading to and from the gas fields, every motel I stayed in had gas workers staying there, my helicopter pilot got most of his work from the industry, so did the car rental company, there were gas workers in the takeaways I went to, and heaps of port activity to do with the industry, and lots of support enegineering businesses. It is nearly a fifth of the whole GPD of Taranaki – as much as the total for the dairy industry.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1,
Venture Taranaki is a pro oil and gas organization that is likely to be funded by the industry. PEPANZ is an oil and gas industry lobby group. Therefore the claims of 6930 full time jobs in Taranaki are likely wrong and in no way shows the actual financial benefit.
We are looking for a document that actually proves these claims… not just more propaganda photonz1.
Nobody is arguing that there is no financial benefit from having an oil and gas industry btw, we’re just dismissive of industry funded and unscientific information that is not based in reality.
There is also the question of safety and whether the financial benefits to New Zealand (4% from oil and 1% from gas) outweigh the ecological damage when (not if) an accident occurs.
As those living with the after effects of Deepwater Horizon can tell you, the unproven benefits do not outweigh the risks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/31/dolphins-sick-deepwater-oil-spill
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326160825.htm
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/bp_reasons.html
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-health-effects-deepwater-horizon-oil.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Jackal says “the unproven benefits do not outweigh the risks.
Benefits? You mean like those benefits that are paid, only because people can go to work in their cars and buses and earn a living and pay tax – those sort of benefits are not worth if people can’t travel to work?
Jackal says “Venture Taranaki is a pro oil and gas organization that is likely to be funded by the industry.”
This just goes to prove that you will completely disragard fact and truth to say something – anything – even if it’s completely false – as long as it backs your blinkered view.
It’s the community and local councils who founded and primarily fund Venture Taranaki, along with community trusts and foundations.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
photonz1
Certainly looks like an expensive bit of propaganda to me photonz1.
Is it just a coincidence that the Venture Taranaki document you’ve linked to is hosted on the oil and gas industry lobby group PEPANZ’s website?
If the Taranaki Regional council’s track-record on ensuring the frackers adhere to their consents is anything to go by, nothing they openly publish should be believed.
Here is what a South Taranaki District councillor has to say about the Taranaki Regional Council.
I’m sure you’ll say something… anything, even if it’s completely false – as long as it backs your blinkered view though photonz1.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Jackal – they’ve been fracking for 20 years and not a word of concern from you or anybody.
Then all of a sudden anti-fracking is the latest fashion and it’s a blind panic and you are jumping up and down with your arms and legs waving maddly that the world will end if it carries on.
What’s the next cultish bandwagon coming along that you’ll jump onto?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
photonz1
You’re such a condescending dickhead photonz1.
People have become more aware of the problems inherent in fracking photonz1. As more people learn that fracking is related to water contamination, earthquakes and greenhouse gasses they are making an educated decision that it is not safe and therefore should be banned.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
John Hansen – Asshole of the Week
While the dog whistle of terrorism reverberates around the empty skulls of racist bigots, a judge is meant to be free from such prejudices…
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Still do not get it do you Photo..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Jackal – rhetorical question – Why are left-wingers so nasty?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rena disaster – who’s really to blame
The failed free-market ideology that National blindly follows and greedy multinational’s are just as much to blame as those hapless idiots Captain Mauro Balomaga and navigational officer Leonil Relon who piloted the MV Rena into the Astrolabe reef…
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
It tends to be buried as a cause because it reflects on the manning levels allowed by national regulatory authorities. Easier to duck responsibility by blaming the crew for failing to be wide awake.
http://www.imo.org/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/stcw-hours-of-rest.aspx
Note: This is the new improved rest hour requirements. In force after the Rena grounding.
Watchkeepers are now only allowed to work 91 hours a week. 13 hours a day. Note these are not consecutive hours when on the coast, but randomly variable ones, depending on port calls. With a minimum rest period or 6 hours daily.
Compare with truck drivers and airline pilots. 11 and 8 hours minimum rest in 24.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6762
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_driver
Both those occupations are known to have fatigue problems, http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/fatigue-levels-in-taxi-and-local-route-drivers/docs/taxi-local-route-fatigue.pdf , but seafarers hours are allowed to be considerably greater.
The Rena crew apparently had to wait on standby for another ship before entering Napier, shift off the berth and back while there and wait on standby for 4 hours before departure. (Source NZ Geographic). Anyone who has worked on a ship knows they would have had little sleep in that time.
The Master is unlikely to have had any.
You can imagine what constantly varying inadequate sleep time, rough weather, noise from cargo operations, demands from shore officials, (always seems to be during rest hours) and the demand to fit in with the port schedule does to seafarers health and ability to perform competently.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Kerry,
Take on board your point on fatigue.
Wonder if the time is right in the marine industry to have a “sea” crew plus a “port” crew for shipping.
Not talking about the whole crew just the “management” staff (max 5 people?).
Port crew is responsible for loading/unloading, in port movements, etc.
The sea crew takes the ship between ports.
I find it an anomoly in the maritime trade that the captain and his officers have so much continuous responsibility.
As you say the breaks are available but they are never “away” from the job site.
Airline pilots, truck drivers, etc. are away from their job sites getting refreshed, ship staff cant.
The maritime trade does have generous time away with long, long breaks (some only “work” 5 months of the year) and wonder if this could be changed to enable “shore” crews and “sea” crews.
One could easily see two crews leap frogging ports of call, shore crew one stop, sea crew the next, etc.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Yes we do get long breaks. Time on time off in our case.
Though if you count hours worked per year at 90 hours/week when on, then it is equivalent to a 45 hour week every week of the year with no holidays.
Working 5 months a year, as some Aussie crews do, just brings the annual hours in line with most shore staff.
I found working in shore management a doddle, in comparison.
Seagoing is an addiction though. Most other jobs, and I have done a few, are boring in comparison.
Crews like the Rena’s do 9 months or more at a time. They have to resign to get leave (With no guarantee of being re-employed) . Research shows that the crews performance drops markedly after 4 weeks on.
I think we really want ships watch officers well rested, given the consequences of mistakes.
Instead of struggling to stay awake, which is the everyday reality for most ships officers.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Don’t know if this was the case with the Rena yet, but may be given the sudden interest by MNZ in Chart plotters/ECDIS on local ships.
Ships the Rena’s size and age are not required to have chart plotters/ECDIS. Standard equipment on most runabouts these days.
We already know from accident and incident reports that transferring Lat and Long from GPS to a paper chart is not intuitive and causes problems.
So much so that some of us believe GPS should not be used without a plotter.
A GPS without a plotter shows course to go, but you need to refer to a plotter or paper chart to see obstacles.
A well known incident from the early days of GPS was a launch which set course from Channel Island to Westhaven Marina. Last seen falling apart on the Noises.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
While the owners and operations of the ship must certainly share some of the blame, jail time for the two at the helm seems perfectly reasonable to me. The reef showed up on their radar and they choose to ignore the signal thinking it was a small boat. If it had been a small boat, their actions would have endangered that boat’s occupants! Instead it was the Rena’s crew that were endangered.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It was flat calm. The reef would not have shown up on Radar.
More will come out in the enquiry. Except for the parts where regulatory authorities fell down of course. But indications are that fatigue and lack of equipment may have had a lot to do with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They get the jail time for trying to cover up. Not for the FU.
And yes. I would agree that is appropriate.
But, It is a pity that the regulators who failed in prevention and response and those who allow ships to operate at the lowest possible level of safety escape jail time.
Grounding the Rena was a mistake, probably caused at least in part by unrealistic demands on ships crews and inadequate equipment.. Even though the consequences were serious.
What our regulators and politicians did to contribute was negligence.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The Astrolabe Reef did show up on the radar, about 5km away, according to reports of the court case. (I posted a link but it didn’t appear.)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would be surprised. It hasn’t shown up on ours in similar conditions.
It was also high water.
Shows up well now though
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let me try another link:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10808367
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Murray McCully hang your head in shame
National has reneged on aid commitments to the world’s poorest people, by cutting $133 million from its Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) budget over the next three years…
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Just because he’s gone, don’t let it go to your heads. It is half a month now and that is at least a week TOO LONG….
…and I still think that you should allow Phil to come back on board here… IF he is willing to bother himself to do so. He noticed stuff… not always politely but it really wasn’t THAT bad.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
9 
0 (+9)
This is good.
http://www.stephaniemcmillan.org/codegreen/2011/04/24/the-same-vigor-2/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
THIS ISN’T EVEN ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FRONT PAGE!!! A NEW GENERAL THREAD!!! NOW !!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
Press release from the Merchant Service Guild.
“”Ship Officers’ Union says imprisonment ‘too harsh’
The union representing ships’ officers says imprisonment of the Rena master and second officer is not the appropriate response to poor seamanship and panicked actions.
“Imprisonment will do little to improve the standard of crews operating around our shores. While we cannot condone falsifying information, we do acknowledge the tremendous pressure placed on seafarers operating far from home, with little or no support from the ship owner, and to the extremes of their ability”, said Captain Lew Henderson, President of the NZ Merchant Service Guild, the union which represents captains, officers, maritime pilots, tug personnel, and other seafarers in the New Zealand maritime and inshore passenger tourism industries.
The union considers imprisonment as the ultimate sanction which should be reserved for the most grievous cases. “Where there is culpable behaviour such as criminal intent or recklessness, then there should certainly be dire consequences”, Capt Henderson said, “but criminalisation of the job is a worrying trend, and it’s not the way to deal with behaviour such as caused the grounding of the Rena”, he said.
“In this case it seems obvious there was no criminal intent, and that genuine remorse has been demonstrated”, he said. “Reports of the captain’s “obsession” with a 3am arrival at Tauranga just emphasises that commercial pressure put on these people can be enormous. Failing to meet the tide in Tauranga could have huge financial consequences and the master is accountable”, said Capt Henderson.
“It also looks like there has been little recognition of the punishing schedule the ship was on. It had four port calls in the five days prior to the grounding. Every seafarer knows that a port call means little or no sleep for those working the cargo in port, and even less for the master”, he said.
Mr Henderson says the risk of more incidents like this remains as long as we have ships working under Third World conditions around the New Zealand coast. “New Zealand’s own fleet of coastal and international ships has been allowed to gradually dissolve over the years until the country has become almost totally reliant on flag of convenience shipping for the movement of our freight”. “”
Increasing the pressure on an already demanding job by imprisoning people for mistakes is not the way to increase safety.
If it is, why do we not apply it to politicians and journalists. Some of their actions have much more serious consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
bump.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Frog – are you OK? I have only seen one posting from you in the last two weeks (on the 24th) – unless that was actually deputy assistant frog.
If you can manage it, could we have another General Debate thread please?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
FROG! A NEW GENERAL THREAD!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
bump bump.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)