Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd also be grateful if anyone who feels there are methodological or technical flaws in the index could explain them in some detail. It will come in handy next week ...
I'm happy to make a start, but I'm sure someone more expert can elaborate.
My main query is why did the study examine only the direct and not indirect costs etc?
Compared with what this study has done, a general equilibrium analysis would take the estimate of the costs etc (about which I have one question), and then model the impact of changes to policy to work out the relative benefits/cost effectiveness.
This kind of analysis allows you to compare different interventions i.e. tighter border controls and policing compared with more needle sharing; which best reduces the number of dependent drug users, STD infections, B&Es, incarceration and the costs of prison as well as the externalised costs experienced by families etc.
Obviously there's all sorts of assumptions but over time you become more and more confident of the validity of the assumptions. This approach is increasingly common in Australia and I've had involvement in a couple that examined the comparative benefit of various education and labour market interventions.
However, there may be sound reasons why this approach was not taken here and, I suspect, the advantage of international comparisons was a key consideration.
-
Nick,
You've made some fair points but you characterise the argument for separating CIRs from elections as being somehow disingenuous. As if, advocating for their separation either (a) about avoiding any reconsideration of the amendment or (b) insults public intelligence.
I don't think that's reasonable.
My view is that would prefer general elections remain just that: exclusively focused on electing the government on the basis of a broad range of policies.
If the cost of holding a CIR doesn't vary significantly according to the timing, and they remain non-binding, what possible advantage is there to combining them? Public convenience? Is that it? CIRs are not the only way issues get political attention - the Bradford amendment is evidence of precisely this.
-
Julie and Caroline,
I've thought about whether I should reply to your comments as there's not really anything I disagree with - these are demeaning terms, I agree, and the overall portrayal of this situation has reflected a not-so-latent sexism.
It's is true, however, that in some countries, England particularly, the media have actively encouraged, if not commissioned, people to try to capture celebs in compromising positions: Shane Warne being one of the most recent and high-profile (and one I have absolutely no sympathy for - he's a complete a**e).
Shand may be guilty of being sexist, but I suspect he's talking more broadly about the way All Blacks are treated. I know of a number of All Blacks who've endured sustained and well planned baiting by blokes looking for a fight so I suspect Shand's talking about a broader range of situations than commenting on this situation.
I do think some advice should be provided to the All Blacks about how they should behave in public. I think that advice should start with telling them to avoid going out and getting pissed and, at a minimum, insisting that they obey the law and treat people with respect.
I seriously doubt that the English players were set up - I think this is a predictable and tacky diversion. We'll never know the facts, but my sense is that these players did abuse this young woman and I'm apalled they might get away with it.
-
Actually Sofie, it'd be great to have Nandor's perspective to compare with Anderton's, I'm sure it will be different and well-considered; is there anyone who could suggest to him that he joins the debate?
-
Anderton makes some perfectly valid points but I think this comment:
I am certainly pleased to have a fair, independent estimate of how much harm in dollar terms. And I think anyone who doesn’t want to know how much harm drugs cause is not interested in knowing about the harm because they think the high is worth it.
Is absurd.
He's effectively saying any criticism of this Index is purely self-interested; pot-heads wanting to avoid the reality. That's an entirely unreasonable representation of the comments I've read. He also neglects the methodological questions by simply saying it "was peer reviewed". I'm sure the Minister has seen the limitations of many many peer reviewed studies.
-
What a fucking disgrace! I'd like someone to quantify (in dollar terms, natch) the social cost of bogus public policy "research" driven by self-interest and unfounded assumptions.
Actually, despite my misgivings about the methodology and some of the assumptions informing the modeling, I don't think this is "bogus". I do think it's partial, but it's damn sight better than "just say no".
-
Graeme said:
I do think deliberately timing the referendum to ensure a low turnout is anti-democratic (as some here have suggested). And if it's held other than at the election, I've stated that that will have been at the option (and expense) of the Government, and not because of force of circumstance.
Arranging the referendum to guarantee its failure is anti-democratic for certain.
My concern is that we should seperate CIRs from other signficant electoral events to ensure that they are fully and adequately considered and do not divert attention from the other matters/events.
The fact that this issue, or any potential CIR issue, might leak through to a general election is not reason enough to combine them. I'm sure they could and there's no reason they shouldn't - I think Labour's win in 1987 was influenced by the USS Buchanan and the Homosexual Law Reform Act for instance.
I also think the expense alone should not be a factor.
I really doubt that this would happen, here particularly. First, generally, the spending limit for those wanting to campaign on the referendum is $50,000. And in the specific instance, the "no" camp knows it's going to win. Thirdly, whether the referendum happens at the election or not, it is going to be an election issue.
I don't. We may simple disagree on this. I had some minor involvement in the Next Step campaign (Nicky Hagar and others led this) in the mid-90s. It failed, for all sorts of reasons, but the goal was clearly to have an impact on the general election. So far CIRs haven't but I've little doubt that this one would and, regardless of what I think about the issue, I wonder about the merits of any one issue overwhelming all other matters in an election. It potentially plays into the hands of smaller, single issue parties and could distort the make up of parliament.
-
Graeme, I can't help but wonder if your support for the reform isn't colouring your perspective here.
Leaving the specific issue to one side, I don't think holding CIRs at the same time as the general election is a good idea regardless of what they are. The general election is already a massive collection of referenda, holding a CIR risks diverting attention from all these matters to one matter potentially of limited interest outside a particular interest group (remember the firefighters, should a general election play second fiddle to the IR issues for one profession). I realise there's a cost with not holding CIRs at the same time, but frankly the greater 'cost' is the risk of the tail wagging the dog.
-
Ross Bell said:
...and are commissioning our own peer review of the index.
That's good to hear Ross. I do wonder what impact this will have in the short term i.e. this budget cycle (and I'm sure you're aware of the seductive power of international benchmarking), but it's only through the approach you're taking that policy will be improved.
I don't know what it's like for you and your colleagues, but I am increasingly wary of the pressure 'keep-up' with other jurisdictions which tends to homogenise policy for the purposes of international comparisons (and, IMO, NZ is often ahead of international policy cycles, so keeping up may mean slowing down).
-
The names of the four players are now public though the matter remains confused. Jackie's comment up thread are scarely prescient.