Monthly Archives: May 2018

Meth houses not so methed up as New Zealand thinks

Posted on by
Reply

A report into how New Zealand houses are tested for methamphetamine has delivered some stunning results. For years it has been thought that a house contaminated with methamphetamine would need to be gutted and everything in it thrown out. But, with the report suggesting that those in the methamphetamine testing and clean up industry knowing that the houses were safe all along, it is either game over for the industry or time for a complete overhaul of how it works.

The results are stunning. The Government Chief Scientist Peter Gluckman’s report has found no evidence that there is any third hand risk to tenants in houses where methamphetamine has been consumed. In the years that this has been known, but not admitted, possibly several thousand houses in New Zealand that could have been used for housing some of our neediest and most vulnerable people have been unnecessarily off limits, pending gutting or complete demolition. It has been suggested that there may be as many as 670 houses that are actually not contaminated by methamphetamine in the perceived way that led to them being shut down.

Not suprisingly advocates for tenants evicted as a result of the methamphetamine are insisting on compensation. Their reasoning stems from the fact that the tenants would have lost their possessions in being forced to move out from contaminated property and are therefore justified in seeking some sort of reparation.

The financial cost of getting a house tested is just the start. A basic test to determine whether methamphetamine has used in the house might set one back $200. Depending on the materials used in the houses construction and decoration it might cost anywhere between $7,500 and $40,000 to get the methamphetamine removed from any suspect houses.

But from whom will this reparation come? The Government has already suggested that it will not be offering any – a standpoint that I think may be challenged in a court of law in good time. The methamphetamine testing industry may have suffered a fatal blow with this report, which insiders admitted they knew was going to come sooner or later and that many were aware that the testing regime had set a very low threshhold.

So, who is to blame for the lack of oversight that might have prevented this happening in the first place? Judith Collins, National spokesperson for Housing says that the previous Government was acting on advice from experts familiar with methamphetamine. Yet when interviewed on Breakfast by Jack Tame, Ms Collins said she did not know who these experts were. Ms Collins also said that many agencies used the information supplied to make decisions and the decisions made at the time were justified on the basis that if one supposed that it had been ignored and risk turned out to be true, then the conversation would be about negligence.

Negligence or not, the testing industry needs to be held to account before it can be trusted to do any more work.

 

District Health Boards shake up coming

Posted on by
Reply

In 2000, not long after Prime Minister Helen Clark’s Labour Government had commenced, it was announced that the National Health Funding Authority would be disestablished. In its place would be a set of District Health Boards across New Zealand who would be allocated money from the budge and be saddled with the responsibility for prioritizing its use and distributing the money accordingly. 18 years later, another Labour Government is reviewing it.

I am personally not very surprised a review is coming. District Health Boards have never really struck me as the most efficient method of dispensing funding, however good the idea of a democratically elected board to oversee the prioritization might be (and is). A significant portion of the money is locked up in administrative costs.

Yes, there is no doubt that governing something as big as a national health system is a huge task and the system of governance is something that must be robust. For that there is equally no doubt that the systems needed will be comprehensive and that there will be many tasks that are not obvious to the public eye that need performing.

But do we really need 20 district health boards? New Zealand geographically is generally recognized as being Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, Manawatu, Gisborne, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa, Wellington, Nelson, Marlborough, Canterbury, West Coast, Otago, Southland, West Coast.

The unfortunate saga of Nigel Murray of the Waikato District Health Board was a rare but notable example of a District Health Board chief going rogue with huge personal misuse of money that he had no personal right to. However this is not the cause of the problems that go on in the District Health Boards. More likely the problems stem from the appalling lack of public interest in elected D.H.B.’s – is it possible that they realise there are possibly more effective ways of governing the health system in New Zealand than half baked boards behaving like a television that is trying to function with only half the necessary power available, that is smoking and smouldering its way into some sort of oblivion? Because to be coldly honest, people simply do not have much interest in how the D.H.B.’s work and nor do they terribly care about who gets elected to the Boards because one way or the other something will stuff up.

Back in 1999, following the failure of the Crown Health Enterprises, which established a series of entities meant to act like businesses and make a profit, the National led Government of Prime Minister Jenny Shipley was casting around for alternative means. Their solution was a centrally funded Health Funding Authority which would allocate money based on population size from Wellington. Unfortunately for National the solution was never realized as the party was swept from office by the Labour Government of Ms Clark.

I have written in other articles about the savings that I think could have been made from not having the D.H.B.’s. There has been much written about the poor prioritizing of spending in some D.H.B.’s such as the Canterbury District Health Board, where in the post earthquake environment there were increasing demands for additional mental health services. Whatever model the Government comes up with needs to be able to address the long term growth in demand for services.

Mycoplasma Bovis decision devastating but correct

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday New Zealand farmers found out the likely cost of a major biosecurity menace that has been found

The Mycoplasma Bovis crisis is at a critical level and the Government has made what looks like a gutsy call. Eradication of M. Bovis is the only solution and that it is going to cost around N.Z.$886 million to deal with over the time that the attempt to remove it from New Zealand is in progress.

Farmers, especially those in dairying have not always been popular in New Zealand. Whilst being a significant part of the economy and contributing over N.Z.$15 billion to it per annum in more recent years, there has been a significant environment cost. The cost has not just been a significant degradation of fresh water resources, but also a significant contribution to New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas output.

But if we put the negative aspects aside for a moment, there is no easy way to look at this. 160,000 cattle are going to be slaughtered in the near future, which whilst representing only 1.4% of the national herd, is going to devastate some farmers and their livelihoods. There are some who may have been farming their whole lives who will now find all of that hard work being slaughtered. A few may have to walk from their properties.

Federated Farmers New Zealand finds itself in rare agreement with the Labour Government about the direction that this crisis is going. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern found herself in agreement with F.F.N.Z. President Katie Milne and Dairy New Zealand boss Jim van der Poel who agreed that the one chance to clear M. Bovis from New Zealand is now and that eradication is the solution. All acknowledged the toll that this would place on farmers.

No one wants to see such a huge loss of animal life. It reminds me of the huge medieval response Britain made when Mad Cow Disease broke out there in 2001. That effectively crippled the entire dairy industry in Britain and costing 226 human lives as well as the lives of millions of animals. However the potential cost to New Zealand if M. Bovis is not eradicated is huge. It would have a lasting negative impact on New Zealand farming on the whole and on our reputation overseas, which is not something New Zealand can afford.

In the coming days, weeks and months, thousands of cattle are going to die. But if nothing done in those coming days, weeks and months, the cost is going to be much worse.

 

 

Simon Bridges drops in popularity; Crusher enters preferred P.M. stakes

Posted on by
Reply

National leader Simon Bridges is not the most popular politician in New Zealand at the moment. Whilst he might have the support of his National Party, and not really having been tested in the short time that he has been in office, his popularity is right where Andrew Little’s was this time last year before Jacinda-mania took hold.

Mr Bridges is experiencing the same very low levels of popularity that assailed successive Labour leaders during the three terms that party was out of office. For the time being this is not cause for alarm as Mr Bridges still has at least two years to wait before the next election, meaning there is plenty of time for Labour to make a significant mistake that National can capitalize on.

However if Mr Bridges still finds himself in this position cometh the 2020 Fiscal Budget he might find himself being challenged for the job. For that to happen though, there would need to be a significant change in polling fortunes. Right now A.C.T. and National can muster 59 seats in a Parliament of 122.

Perhaps the party that should be the most concerned is New Zealand First. Since their announcement that they will support the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership, the support for the party has plunged with many people who until then had been staunch supporters walking away from the party of Winston Peters. Prior to that announcement, the Party had been widely viewed by the voting public as the only party other than the Greens that was stridently opposed to the C.P.T.P.P. and its predecessor the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (T.P.P.A.). If an election were had today and the poll result was accurate, there would be no New Zealand First in the new Parliament.

The Green Party are still struggling with the post-Metiria Turei era. Mrs Turei’s departure from Parliament as a result of being made to resign following admissions that she misled Department of Work and Income over her income whilst she was a solo mother, was bad enough. But that was damage that could have been (probably would have been)fixed had she announced at the same time that she had paid it all back, leaving the Opposition with minimal ammunition and probably not causing the revolt in the ranks of the Green Party. Although they have now elected Marama Davidson to the co-leadership position, Mrs Davidson has yet to be distinctly heard, which is something that the Greens will be hoping changes in the near future. Because of that, the Greens slipped slightly in the poll.

A.C.T. continues to languish in the poll, supported only by leader David Seymour’s hold on the Epsom electorate. Granted Mr Seymour has been showing off his dance moves on Dancing With The Stars, and his End of Life Choice Bill has cross party support in dealing with euthanasia, there is little else maintaining peoples interest in him or his party.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern sails positively on. A few weeks away from going on maternity leave and handing Mr Peters temporary control of the country, Ms Ardern sits on 40.2% support in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. Since much Labour policy is still to come and her handling of the problems that have so far come her way, has been largely competent, like Mr Bridges, although for quite contrasting reasons, she has little cause for alarm.

Answering the question: WILL NEW ZEALAND BE RIGHT?

Posted on by
Reply

When I first established this blog I wanted it to be asking a critical question of New Zealand. The question needed to be critical – it needed to bring a focus on the ability of New Zealand as a nation to be all that it can be and not just what the country currently is; to in the first instance be the best small nation in the world.

I chose the title of my blog as a play on the well known saying used in Australia and New Zealand, “She’ll be right mate”. It is a way of saying “Don’t worry – everything will be fine”. It also encapsulates an attitude that has become too prevalent in all aspects of life, that leaving things to chance instead of going the extra distance and making sure that whatever the problem is, goes away on its own. It undermines the ethos of being a New Zealander. It undermines the narrative of being a small resourceful nation that loves its peace and maiantains good reputation among the global powers.

The “She’ll be right” attitude has also helped to give rise to some worrying traits in terms of how New Zealanders handle political promises and the politicians who make them. Frequently there are cases of politicians vowing to make good on an opportunity to right wrongs, possibly meaning well, but also possibly meaning to score political points that show they are acknowledging concerns. Except that there is nearly always some sort of hitch including those writing the policy thinking they know best, a significantly weakened version written by politicians with a preference for being middle of tthe road. To figure this out one needs the skill of reading between the li(n)es and spotting the real message.

One problem that has been passed through the last two generations of New Zealanders is the deliberate running down of the lower and middle class. The methodology is subtle. Slow but sustained stretching of New Zealanders to breaking point is the name of the game. It is to  make sure that they are too tired after a busy week to stay informed and generally ignore the latest legislation going through Parliament. The need to earn money is hampered by resistance to.meaningful wage rises and improvements in working conditions, usually because of an alleged hike in costs to the employer –  true or otherwise.

Thus we come to a bit of a rat race, where the population are working harder and harder but continue to fail to get ahead. Politicians prove unable or – just as likely – unwilling to get meaningful measures in place, lest it yank their snouts out of the trough. They have the know how and the means, but they lack the will.