Monthly Archives: May 2017

Was Government deceitful with I.E.T.C.?

Posted on by
Reply

For years a Government tax credit has existed for low-middle income earners in the N.Z.$24,000-48,000 pay range. It is called the Independent Earner Tax Credit Now the Government has said it is going to get rid of the I.E.T.C. on the grounds that so few people have applied for it, that it is not worth continuing.

Wait? What?

During the Fiscal Budget announcement on Thursday 25 May 2017, the Government announced a new tranche of changes to taxation in New Zealand. Scrapping the I.E.T.C. was part of it. The Government says though that individual who claim it will still be compensated via a movement in the upper limit of the lowest tax bracket (current 10.5% up to $14,000, which will be moved to $22,000 on 01 April 2018).

This is rather rich. The I.E.T.C has existed for several years in New Zealand. But many many people who would qualify for it have never heard of its existence. This was well demonstrated when Gabrielle Purchas, the Managing Director of WooHoo, was interviewed for a story on the issue said it would seem that many people were not even aware that it existed. Some of them were even employees of her own company.

So how much effort was made at the time the I.E.T.C. was introduced to explain to New Zealanders what it did and why they should be interested in it? The I.E.T.C. was introduced in 2009 in the first set of taxation changes made by National after coming to office the previous year. It is intended to be an incentive to move towards full time work according to an I.R.D. information release.

To see if you are eligible for some of the $68 million that potentially owed to New Zealanders from this I.E.T.C., go here and do the test for your primary income source. And let us see how many people we know who would qualify for this.

Trump intelligence policies should concern New Zealand

Posted on by
Reply

Like many other people I am loosely following the allegations and counter allegations of alleged mishandling of classified information by United States President Donald Trump. As the investigation into whether Mr Trump and his inner circle did more than just pass on information too secret for the allies and nations friendly to the United States, progresses, so too does the development of concerns about what all this may mean for New Zealand.

Over the last several months I have become more concerned with how Mr Trump handles highly classified intelligence. My concerns stem from the revelation that Mr Trump has given Russia, a primary rival of the United States data that it considered to be too sensitive for its nearest allies to have access to. Aside from raising obvious questions about the security of classified data, if Mr Trump has been found to have done this, is there anything else that he or people in powerful could have done to potentially compromise our relations.

Prime Minister Bill English has no problems and is not apparently concerned by the issues that the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security has raised. This is despite her very legitimate concerns that New Zealand is at risk of being drawn into illegal activities promoted by the United States Government, including the use of water boarding and other tortuous practices. Mr Trump has alluded to potentially reopening the secret centres where such practices were carried out on prisoners.

New Zealand has a reputation for respecting international law. Over the years – though less so recently – New Zealand has been remembered for calling out other nations when they fallen afoul of international statutes that they signed up to. That reputation puts us in good stead with the United Nations, with other nations around the world and is frequently cited as a reason for many refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants coming out to New Zealand. All of these people see New Zealand as a stable, transparent and responsible country with an accountable Government. This is a reputation that would be undermined if we endorsed the types of changes that Mr Trump is thought to want to instigate.

For New Zealand to remain safe from terrorism and yet still free, we need to continue to uphold the rule of law like we have done in the past. We need to be seen as a positive example for the small Pacific Island nations of what they can aspire to be more like, instead of adopting the totalitarian excesses of China, who strives to project its influence further abroad, or the United States with its hypocritical politicians that say one thing and do something completely different.

Time to address concussion in sport

Posted on by
Reply

The deaths of two young rugby players just a few days apart will bring into crystal clear focus the very high risk in certain types of sport of concussion. For the first time players and media commentators seem to be starting to accept that it is time to stop beating about the bush, and accept that the cons of a head knock during a match far out weigh the pros. But even as the evidence and concern has continued to to grow that there is a crisis, in that the sporting bodies, the administrators are trying to depict more immediate problems in the form of meeting corporate priorities, least that they suddenly find themselves suffering a knock of another sort.

Rugby and rugby league have always been high risk collision sports where physical human contact is integral to the game. Both have rules about how to deal with high and poorly executed tackles where the head part of the spinal system may suffer concussive type knocks.

Contrast with the National Football League in the United States where dollars seem to be more important than the well being of players in the long term. The pressure to get players that can change a match to go back on the field when they are still suffering symptoms has been the subject of numerous documentaries and a movie. Coaching a football team of young men who have a macho attitude is considered to be a major honour without really thinking about how these people will fair when they retire continues to challenge American sporting authorities. It also challenges the medical practitioners, the families who have to watch their loved ones deal with the effects of brain damage or damage to the spinal cord caused by a heavy knock or knocks. It affects their potential job prospects because the damage might mean that the brain tires more quickly or is not able to deal with complex matters as easily as a healthy brain not subject to such issues might.

But whilst New Zealand might seem to be making progress when rugby and league are compared to the N.F.L. competition there is no doubt that we have some way to go in addressing the issues they present.

In fact it is long since time to take this to the next level and institute a concussion programme for anyone playing sport where there is the potential for concussion. Netball, rugby, cricket – all need to come on board. Who can forget the Australian batsman who fell down dead after being struck by a bouncer a couple of years ago? Horrific, totally unintentional yet, thanks to the design of the helmet an act that would have been lethal quite quickly Phil Hughes suffered what would have become very severe bleeding of one of the most important arteries in his body, which would have put quick and massive pressure on his brain.

What about net ballers misjudging a high intercept and occasionally colliding mid air? It has probably happened. I cannot recall any major incidents where anyone went off with concussion, but certainly watching their charges in playing, team coaches and physicians have probably wondered

Of course we should enjoy our sport and the more people who get involved the better for everyone well. The more who enjoy a good netball or rugby match, or whatever – all the better – but lets try to keep the injury toll down. I do not think after all there is a single person who would argue that two deaths from concussion related issues is two too many.

Theresa May announces her own War on Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

So, British Prime Minister Theresa May has announced her own “War on Terrorism”. Two days after the attack on the Ariana Grande concert, we hear that the British Prime Minister has decided that Britain has its own “War on Terrorism” to wage.
My immediate reaction was, how is this going to help? If it goes the way of the American “War on Terror”, it is going end in disaster.
There is so much western Governments do not understand about terrorism, or they do understand it, but their desire to look tough in the face of danger means they break every rule in the book.
One of the most irksome is terrorists want mass media coverage, notoriety, glory – call what you may – and we hand it to them in gigabytes. We rush to cover their attention grabbing acts, to hear the politicians vow to get tough, to slam through poorly thought out knee jerk laws. In this deeply interconnected world, where an e-mail or text message can travel around the world in a matter of seconds, where I can post things on Facebook and my brothers American in-laws will see it almost immediately, it is impossible to get away from the coverage.
Yes it is dreadful. Yes we should be shocked that totally innocent people were killed and maimed, but it is time to take a stand and ask where are we going wrong – why is this not only happening, but getting more and more frequent? The commonest answers “because they hate us” are grotesquely oversimplified. Without writing a PhD on the causes of terrorism though, it is brazenly obvious that the western approach is failing or has failed. So let us have a look at why.
Those laws, those fearful reactions, that horror is precisely what the terrorists want. They want to create a climate of fear and the Government – not just the U.S. and British Governments – are rushing blindly into the trap.
Another is a complete, abject and possibly quite deliberate failure to report critically on the War on Terrorism. There is a shocking tendency to use vague generic language – I mean how often have you heard “A top/key/senior al-Qaida commander has been killed by a __________ in _________”. The vagaries are to lull the public into a false sense of progress being made; a false sense of this can be won”.
The media are supposed to be the ally of free people. They are supposed to critique the Government, report big stories such as inappropriate use of tax payer money, perjury, dodgy weapons deals such as the one between Donald Trump’s administration and Saudi Arabia and so on.
The third is the public rush to believe uncritically the politicians who espouse toughness against terrorism; who ram laws through like a medieval battering ram. We cannot win when the public cannot have a say on the very laws that are supposed to protect them (“We the people” and all that, America…).
Well, yes it can be won, but it sure ain’t gonna be won by waging aggressive wars in foreign lands your governments and the military establishments under their command know nothing about – and probably care even less.
The real ways to beat terrorism are not sexy, for the most part do not need cluster bombs, cruise missiles, or ground invasions. It certainly does not need regimes that care not a jot about humanity to be propped up by the supposed leaders of the free world, or for the clock to be continually banging past thirteen as George Orwell spins in his grave, realizing 1984 has become a manual of some grotesque sort.
The west can beat terrorism, but we are going 180º in the opposite direction to that which we should be going.

New Zealand water not for giving away

Posted on by
1

When the news broke that a Chinese investor group had been able to buy up a consent for taking fresh water and bottling it without being charged for anything other than monitoring, I was not very surprised. With the Government attitude of indifference to fresh water as a resource and its deliberate fudging of fresh water quality standards, it was unrealistic to expect anything else.

There are a number of problems with the buying of this consent. It goes against everything most New Zealanders would want to have happen with their fresh water resource and it raises ethical questions about looking after our natural environment.

So, what are those problems?

  1. The consent that has been granted is for 15 years. This is a very long time in a world where the environment is under constant and growing stress. Before the consent expires the physical parameters of the aquifers that are considered when issuing a consent are likely to have changed so much that the consent is rendered obsolete.
  2. Does Christchurch have 4,100 spare cubic metres of water per day to be bottled and sold overseas? When a resource is 100% allocated, it is 100% allocated and – contrary to the belief of politicians and councillors – like 100% of anything else that means there is no more of the resource available for allocation. To attempt to do is to start to deplete the allocation for other water takes.
  3. The deceit in not telling ratepayers that this consent has been bought by non-New Zealand investors will anger many. I spent good portion of today wondering what else is being hidden. It turns out that others have been bottling water in New Zealand, including near Tai Tapu for years.
  4. No royalties are paid to the Crown and the bottling companies does not get charged anything except to cover the monitoring costs of Environment Canterbury.

I believe that the lapse time for water consents should be significantly reduced. I further believe that upon lapsing the consent holder should be reminded to give effect to the consent within a matter of months, or surrender it within that time frame after which it should be revoked. Due to the sensitivity of water as a resource, that the monitoring requirements should be steeper than they currently are – more frequent monitoring and a review of consent conditions every few years should become mandatory.

But the purchasing of that consent also raises ethical issues. Water is a resource that upon no longer being needed by one user, should depart in the same or better condition than that in which it arrived. It is a resource that no one, person, group, company, nation and so on can claim true ownership to. The boundaries of water are only those defined by the parameters of the Earth as a planetary system and any structure – man made or not – that it cannot seep through. It’s need is universal – without water the natural systems cannot sustain life. Degrading it as a resource ultimately degrades the planet and everything living on it.

No amount of science, economics or politics can change the universality of water. But trying to explain that is easier said than done.