Seven random or weird facts

Annie Fox, Not PC and Elijah Lineberry have both tagged me for this sort of doggerel (no it's not doggerel, but I love using the word - look it up). So here goes:

1. I once was told by a previous employer to look for pornography on the internet to find out how easy it was to find, including illegal material, because her boss wanted to know what all the fuss was about from conservatives in the early 1990s.
2. I once sat on a plane next to Winston Peters. I was in business class from Wellington to Christchurch, and the only other occupant of that cabin was Lockwood Smith (on the other side of the aisle). Air NZ cheekily sat us all side by side, even though all other seats in business class (3 rows) were empty. After take off Winston grumpily moved into the front row. I wasn't unhappy with that, he didn't even say hello - none of his voters, except fellow MPs, ever flew business class.
3. I have committed at least 4 criminal offences in Malaysia given that, the first time I visited, I was with my girlfriend (2 aren’t offences if the couple is married). All of these activities are legal in New Zealand.
4. I went to school with a girl who became Miss New Zealand, although at the time I must have annoyed her intensely as I followed her around a lot (must have been about 7 or 8).
5. I was twice a telephone Santa for Telecom, which was great fun, tempered by rude kids, sad kids (wanting a sick relative to get better) and excessively flirty teenage girls.
6. I was once strip searched at a departure gate at LAX before flying to NZ shortly after 9/11, the reason being that boxer shorts with a small stainless steel button would trigger off the hand held metal detector.
7. Radio Sweden once contacted me to participate in a Q&A programme about welfare policy when I was 22, as it wanted someone from New Zealand to talk about “radical” policies.
8. I spent 10 days at a nudist club when I was 12 years old, as I arrived at night, I didn’t know what it was until I walked out of the bach one morning and noted the tall bearded man with a chainsaw, naked.

Yep I can do 8 too, and since I have not read blogs for weeks I wont tag people who I don't know haven't been tagged. I am resisting reading too much because I know if I read Frog Blog I'll get annoyed, and life is too short to get too wound up too often.

It might be my New Year's resolution - to not get wound up as much :)

Sluttiest land in the west?

Yep I'm in it. The UK according to an AAP report in the NZ Herald.

The study by Bradley University Illinois reports:

"An international index measuring one-night stands, total numbers of partners and attitudes to casual sex also put Britain ahead of second-placed Germany, with the Netherlands third, the Czech Republic fourth and the US sixth.

Researchers behind the study say high scores such as Britain's may be linked to society's increasing willingness to accept sexual promiscuity among women as well as men."

So when your son or daughter embarks on the great kiwi OE to the UK they may be in for a a bit more than sightseeing, although perhaps if they could throw together some rude phrases in Finnish going there could have more success on that front as:

"The country with the highest average score was Finland, while Taiwan had the lowest." in terms of how sexually liberal people are in thought and behaviour.

That itself is telling. If there is some truth to this, is Finland swimming in a morass of social problems any worse than many others? It has the third highest per capita reported crime figures in the world (don't be cocky, New Zealand is second) according to the UN, which of course shows that Yemen, South Africa and Zimbabwe are all safer - which of course may simply reflect that most in those countries never bother reporting. It does top suicide stats, which is interesting and sad (but may also reflect the latitude, with very long dark winters). Its high stats for rape may reflect higher levels of reporting (who can know) in a culture that is quite liberal towards women.

and Taiwan the most conservative? Hmmm.

The ACC hole?

So an apparent NZ$297 million deficit in the ACC non-earners account for this year has appeared since the election according to the NZ Herald. What is that about then?

Well let's remember what ACC is - a state monopoly on basic accident insurance that replaced the right to sue for personal injury by accident. Employment based accident insurance is covered by levies on employers, motor vehicle based insurance is covered by a levy included in the motor vehicle registration and licensing fee (and part of fuel tax), but non-employment based accidents are funded by taxes.

Virtually none of this actually reflects risk as conventional privately provided insurance does. You see the ACC principle is no fault - it by and large doesn't matter whether or not you actually were negligent or not in injuring yourself, or whether someone else did it, you all pay the same and get the same type of payments. It is egalitarian through and through, so it is unsurprising that the Kirk Labour government implemented it.

However that does pose some problems. You see, employers are readily levied, although the monopoly means levies are set at types of employment not individual employers. Risky employers don't pay more, neither do good ones pay less. Motor vehicle accident cover being part of your annual licensing fee isn't entirely unreasonable, but again the safest drivers who drive the least pay not much less (if you take fuel tax into account) than the most reckless ones. Socialism at work - everyone pays the same.

It gets worse with all other accidents. You see nobody pays any levies for that, except you do through tax. So the wealthy book reader pays far more than the poor rugby player, although the relative risks are obvious. In New Zealand you don't worry about accident insurance because your employer does it, you do it through your car and it comes out of taxes - so what do you get? A monopoly that delivers monopoly service and can't manage its own finances.

The solution is simple, get rid of the monopoly and give you back your taxes. Whoa that means you have to buy accident insurance. Yes, like everywhere else in the world.

Now it is ACT policy that all of ACC be opened to competition, that doesn't mean doing away with the compulsory aspect (if that didn't exist then the right to sue would have to be reinstated, and sadly the appetite for investigating that is very low). I think it would be a relatively simple process to change this:
1. Eliminate taxpayer funding of ACC and require everyone to pay an ACC levy for themselves and their children annually, reducing taxes by the appropriate proportion. That levy would provide the cover ACC can afford with such a levy, you could of course purchase additional cover from whoever you want. This at least exposes people to realising that this cover isn't "free" or "hidden", the real cost of accident insurance is apparent. However, it doesn't reflect risk so...
2. Open up provision of this cover to any company willing to offer it. It would remain compulsory initially, and at this point based on your risk to yourself - not others. So what happens if you don't buy it? Well you don't have any cover and you can't sue. So at least you'd have some choice and choice of service quality, but insurance companies bearing the cost of people who suffer accidents that aren't their fault will want to pass that on to those whose fault it is. After all, why should you pay a higher premium because you suffered an accident that wasn't your fault? So...
3. Insurance companies set premiums based on total risk, the risk you pose to others as well as yourself. However, in order to recover from those with inadequate cover or none, the right to sue is reimposed. What about those it isn't worth suing? Well your own insurance will cover that risk, because it is a reality of life - such people pay next to no tax now so are effectively out of the system anyway. What about those without insurance? Well they have no cover, and face being sued. Those with insurance let the insurance company cover their own injuries and injuries they cause others.

However don't expect any of this to be even raised by the current government. At the most it will challenge the ACC employer account monopoly (which National scrapped last time). So we continue with the most socialist accident insurance system in the world - a system which pay quickly, but pays poorly. You don't want to have an accident in New Zealand without additional accident insurance.

North Korea congratulates Key and Mecully

From NK News:

Congratulations to PM of New Zealand
Pyongyang, November 23 (KCNA) -- Kim Yong Il, premier of the DPRK Cabinet, on Nov. 21 sent a congratulatory message to John Philip Key upon his assumption of office as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Expressing the belief that the relations between the two countries developing on good terms recently would grow stronger thanks to their joint efforts, the message wished him success in his responsible work.

Congratulations to New Zealand FM
Pyongyang, November 23 (KCNA) -- Pak Ui Chun, DPRK minister of Foreign Affairs, on Nov. 21 sent a congratulatory message to Murray Mecully on his appointment as New Zealand foreign minister.

Expressing the belief that the relations between the two countries would further expand and develop in the interests of the peoples of the two countries in the future, the message wished the foreign minister success in the performance of his new job.

and you might expect this....

Congratulations to New Zealand Environment Minister

Pyongyang, November 23 (KCNA) -- Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, sent a congratulatory message to Nick Smith on his appointment as New Zealand Minister for the Environment.

The Dear Leader expressed the belief that both countries could learn a lot from each other, and said that Dr Smith could learn much from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) treatment of private property rights, which were designed to suit the interests of the nation and the people. The General Secretary invited Dr Smith to visit the DPRK and learn how a low carbon economy can exist in the 21st century, with the lowest aviation footprint of any country, lowest private car ownership and minimal waste of electricity (with unnecessary lights turned off at night). He earnestly believed that the sagacious wisdom of Dr Smith would be valued in the DPRK, and looked forward to meeting him and sharing views on regulating land for environmental purposes. He wished the minister success in his responsible work.

Alright then, how angry and disappointed I am

Yes I've not been motivated to do this. I have returned from the high of being in New York to oodles of urgent work, and meanwhile there is too much negative to even start on.

Obama has demonstrated that change means trusting Hilary Clinton to look after foreign relations. Wise politically, and Clinton is more of a hawk than Obama, but change? Hardly. However, I should wait until he actually gets into office.

The UK government is making Lenin grin with more nationalisations, RBS now being majority government owned, and new Labour embarking on a borrow spend and hope plan that includes minor tax cuts (VAT from 17.5% to 15%, yes go out and spend big) and signalling future tax rises for the evil rich. The Brown government showing it lacks any imagination and has no answer to its past fiscal recklessness but more of the same.

and NZ? Oh please. The broad church government John Key has cobbled together, using three parties when one would have done nicely, is not about serious reform. ACT has effectively been neutralised by the Maori Party, which it itself has also been neutralised. Sir Roger Douglas wont be getting his second chance, and the Maori Party will, of course, face the next election with Labour being the clear alternative if its supporters aren't satisfied.

What is especially disappointing is how willing Rodney Hide appears to have backed John Key, almost unconditionally. He could have granted support as long as Peter Dunne - creator of the Families Commission, and supporters of two terms of Labour - was shut out. He could have granted support demanding the Environment portfolio to rebuff Nick Smith and as a reaction against the Greens. No.

What you've got, which makes me more angry than anything, is the despicable Nick Smith looking at reforming the RMA so that the private sector can take your land, as Not PC has already posted.

I read this days ago, and frankly I'm too livid to say anything - other than how damned pleased I am that I didn't vote for this. Has Nick Smith said he was misquoted? No. Has John Key sacked him for seeking to erode private property rights further? No. Has Rodney Hide threatened to pull support from the government if it proceeds with this? No.

National, you see, has put in place a Green Party Minister for the Environment in drag, one that doesn't pretend to care about private property rights.

You see somehow those of us who opposed Labour are supposed to be basking in the glow of the change in government. Except, you see, Labour is no longer in power, neither are the Greens, Anderton or Winston First. Peter Dunne still is - funny that. He plus three other parties I didn't vote for.

So maiden speeches will come next week, which I will comment on - and perhaps this angry lack of interest in politics will subside over the next few days. I'm thinking of Xmas and New Year, relieved that Bangkok's airports are finally cleared of protestors (see I'm flying SAS and Thai changing at Bangkok to get home for Xmas!), noticing the cold and thinking more of myself than you lot who voted for a disappointing government.

My question will be this. In three years time, will you say that National or ACT met, exceeded or failed to meet your expectations? Would you vote for them again just to keep Labour out? Do those who vote Labour and the Greens do so just to keep National out (and if so why??)?

I hope I'm wrong - I hope Rodney Hide introduces a new Local Government Bill which reverses the power of general competence, and specifies the activities councils cannot do. I hope that taxes continue downwards, and that the promised "line by line" review of spending sees at least NZ$1 billion p.a. in spending cuts. I hope some government agencies are closed and their functions NOT transferred elsewhere - because they are NOT needed. I hope the welfare state is tackled head on. I hope the government refuses to approve any new spending for at least three months, so it can have some sense of sobriety about things.

In other words I hope, in three years, that I'm saying things are better. Not just not as bad as they would have been under Labour, but that there has been an improvement positively, with less government, better managed government concentrating on what matters, and then to offer a vote for Libertarianz as a vote to accelerate this.

On top of that will the so called "centre right" blogosphere (which I am NOT a part of) be content with what the government does? Will the left just plead like children "more of other people's money" for what it cares about - without actually coughing up money itself?