14.5% when I first took on a mortgage. The house of course only cost $156k.
And I guess we have a PM at the moment who is physically and philosohically more comfortable with rich people from overseas than poor people in NZ.
Oh and, BTW, what is the answer cos I'm not quite smart enough to work it out. Is it a combo of capital gains tax, intensification, more land made available? Or is there some other vital component required?
And vote for what change? The Labour Party I love(d) and have voted for all my life are terrified of putting up any policy that might offend Auckland homeowners because it might make them unelectable. The Capital Gains policy that they rushed to jettison before/after the last election, would suddenly start looking like a proper policy response to what's going on, from a party that stuck to its guns despite it being unpopular at the time. But no, Labour are just left floundering on a sort of 'left' with nothing to say, other than 'John's flip flopping'. In other words, they stand for nothing other than being against John. It breaks my heart.
Come on Russell, you already know the answer to that – repeat after me – lower rates, user pays, privatisation, business friendly.
I think we should we should get back to the 60s absence of emotion on the rugger field as a tactic. Imagine how freaked out the opposition would be if there were no celebrations on scoring, and everyone just jogged back to halfway, ready for more. Implication being, that's jus one of many tries we are going to score today so why get excited now.
To de-criminalize any of the drugs in question, you have to put forward a reasoned scientific case for harm minimization. In order to do that, you have to acknowledge the harm done by drugs in general and, therefore, acknowledge that alcohol is by far the most harmful drug in our society. So, logically, you need to impose more restrictions on alcohol and there is your stumbling block. Not only are many people philosophically opposed to that, you will also have dozens of alcohol industry lobbyists off to visit the minister to explain why that is a bad idea.
Bang on with the inshore fishery and smaller craft Tom. QMS was an astounding breakthrough when it was first implemented, and put NZ in the forefront of fisheries management in the world. But it has become all those things you say and only just fulfils its role as a good management weapon. It can only get worse as the current government tries to drive through 20% increases in export earnings.
The politicisation of the QMS was evident in the report into snapper quota for SNA1 in 2013. The scientists said that Bay of Plenty stocks were down to an estimated 6% of original biomass which exceeds the Ministry's technical limit for 'collapse' (less than 10%). However, the Ministry report, compiled by bureaucrats rather than scientists, combined the figures for the Hauraki Gulf (estimated at 20-22% or original biomass) and BOP in order to gloss over the appalling state of the fishery in BOP.
I agree with Ben that bag limits will take care of recreational fishing pressure in SNA1 as long as they are kept current and based on scientific research, not emotion.
Your comment about technology limits does bring up a point I made (unsuccesfully) to a fishing friend recently, that recreational fishing is becoming more and more elitist. For all their talk about the rights of your average citizen to just go out and ‘catch a feed’, it is harder and harder to do that without a big boat and expensive equipment. And by being in denial about the need for further real cuts to recreational bag limits and commercial catches, there will be no significant increase in fish populations, and it will get increasingly harder to ‘catch a feed’.
Quite right Ben. That’s why small changes by a large group of people, like reducing bag limit from 9 to 7 snapper, can make a big difference. The bag limit in the Gulf should really come down to 5 or 6 per person as that is still plenty to feed your family. Fisherman need to get over the need to give some away to the neighbours etc, to show what great hunters they are.
Equally, commercial catch in Snapper 1 needs to drop by at least 20% until there are demonstrable signs of population rebuild.
Yes, snapper is the fish of choice for both recreational and commercial but other species are stressed as well, e.g. trevally, kahawai, crayfish, cockles, scallops, etc. Snapper and crayfish are the ones most fiercely contested by both recreational and commercial fishers.
My campaign-du-jour is to try and drum up enthusiasm for keeping Astrolabe Reef closed to fishing following the Rena sinking, and move it towards a permanent reserve. The hard yards are already done in terms of excluding fishers from the zone around the reef and it is nearly four years old now (I think). There is some impressive anecdotal evidence from divers about the lush schools of fish around the reef now.
Tell your friends.
They are promising recreational fishers something they essentially already have. As you pointed out, there is almost no commercial fishing in the inner Gulf, and what there is is of the best sort – small, targeted and quota managed.
What recreational fishers won’t face up to, with respect to the inner Gulf in particular, is that they are equally responsible for over fishing. This will only increase as the population of Auckland increases. They howl at and blame commercial fishing in the outer Gulf but, in the whole of the Snapper 1 zone (north east of North Island), the recreational catch is almost equal to the commercial catch.
There needs to be at least a 20% cut in snapper quota for both recreational and commercial fishers if we are to see any significant improvement in popuation by the next census (in about four years). In conjunction with many more no-take marine reserves, there would be some chance of significant rebuild of fish stocks. However, both recreational fishers (in the form of individuals and bodies such as Legasea) and commercial fishers are vehemently opposed to reserves anywhere, any time.
One of the latest reserves to be announced, at Kaikoura, has been so knobbled by the interests of iwi and fishers that there is some uncertainty as to whether it will produce much in the way of improvements to the environment and fish stocks. It is dubbed the AK47 reserve because of the shape imposed upon it by various competing interests.
As usual, no one speaks up for the rights of fish.