Voices of Wisdom

Two weeks ago 17-year-old Wellington native Brittany Trilford gave a fantastic speech to the Rio+20 Earth Summit.

And today the Dominion Post has a fantastic opinion piece from 16-year-old Jess Palairet on the Alcohol Reform Bill.

Some highlights:

The Alcohol Reform Bill is not achieving what it should. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to objectively evaluate the drinking culture. It is a chance to make the tough calls now, for the benefit of New Zealand in the long run.

The Alcohol Reform Bill is doing little to tackle New Zealand's binge drinking culture, rather it is punishing Adults for the behaviour of 13-year-olds.

The debate around the reform has so far focused on lifting the age – seeming to place the blame for our bad drinking culture on the shoulders of young people.

I'm not sure if I agree with that.

In a recent survey of under-18s conducted by the Children's Commissoner's Young People's Reference Group, one young person said, "What's never focused on is the fact that young people are the victims".

When it iss put like that it seems so obvious, but I have to admit in all my thinking on New Zealand's binge drinking culture I have never really thought about young people as the victims. But its true.

They are the victims of the media, which has generated this image that young people have to drink to be normal, de-stress and have a good time.

Advertising for alcohol is plastered everywhere young people go; at sports games through sponsorship, on floats at Christmas parades, on television, billboards and on the internet; all of which are near-impossible to get away from.

Children and young people are also the victims of alcohol-related abuse, violence and broken families because of alcohol.

The Alcohol Reform Bill will do little about any of these and Jess finishes with a real flourish.

For these reasons the Government's action needs to be stronger and not tokenistic. There needs to be action that prioritises young people over the alcohol industry. The proposed age change is avoiding the problem and consequently putting the blame on young people.

It should be targeting alcohol advertising and banning alcohol sponsorship for events, such as rugby games; making sure alcohol is not cheaper than milk, simply by raising the price of alcohol; stopping the production of ready-to-drink alcoholic, but seemingly non-alcoholic, drinks.

I know as a teen and even now the best ads on TV are often the alcohol ads and have a big effect on impressionable young people. Similarly what impression does it give when Zac Guildford can go on a drunken rampage in Rarotonga, come back and play in Rugby gear covered in Beer logos in Stadiums covered in alcohol advertising and make the All Black squad?

Raising the drinking age is a smokescreen from a Government and politicians without the guts to take on the Alcohol industry. Thankfully our young people don't seem so afraid.

The DomPost reports Thousands of Kiwis face Budget pay cut. Currently graduates lose ten cents in every dollar they earn over $19,084 to repay their student loan (I am one of these graduates) The government is set to increase this rate in the budget.

Mr Key would not be drawn on the new rate, but said it would raise "tens of millions of dollars".

Currently:

Figures supplied by Inland Revenue show that at the 10 per cent rate that applies now, $690.6million was received in student loan repayments in the year till June 30, 2011.

A one or two cent rise in the rate could pay back an extra seventy to one-hundred and forty million dollars.

Unfortunately some of the responses have been unable to keep things in perspective:

New Zealand Union of Students Associations president Pete Hodkinson said a lift in the repayment rate was a tax increase because it was taken straight out of pay, like PAYE.

Pete Hodkinson appears to be an idiot. My kiwisaver is also taken directly out of my pay, does he consider that a tax? Or how about the donations I make through payroll giving? Statistics show that graduates earn more than non-graduates and they should have to pay for their education which affords them this privilege. In times of economic uncertainty when we all have to tighten our belts there is no reason to exclude graduates.

Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson said the change would put more financial pressure on graduates. The rate should balance the need for loans to be paid off quickly with the need for graduates to meet their costs and be able to take out a mortgage. The increase put that at risk.

The financial pressure on graduates is tiny. Most graduates are single with no dependents and their biggest financial issue is buying shiny new toys. Graduates straight out of university cannot believe how much disposable income they have. There is little reason they cannot pay off their loans before taking out a mortgage. This is disappointing from Grant Robertson who I like.

A lot of the comments on Kiwiblog appear to focus on a number of factors.

1)Why are they not focusing on people overseas who are not making repayments? The government has been focusing on these people, reducing the repayment holiday, working with foreign governments to chase down people. Unfortunately these people are overseas and the government is limited in what they can do about it. I don't like a lot of the things this National Government is doing, but I can not fault them on this.

2)Who do students think pays for their interest free loans? I imagine most students don't spend a lot of time thinking about this question. But if they did they would probably reach the conclusions that it is taxpayers. Which in a few short years they will be and as university graduates earn more on average than non-graduates they pay more in tax on average as well.

Unfortunately the article also says:

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce has also said changes would be made to student allowances. "We're really looking to make sure that we target the allowances to those in the early years of study and those families that can least afford it."

The change would not be dramatic, he said. The cost of allowances had risen to $600m a year, and the Government needed to curb that.

The parental income threshold for allowances was frozen this year and would probably be frozen for another three or four years. Loopholes in the definition of income would also be tightened.

I am in favour of a universal student allowance, although now is not the best time to implement it. However we should not be cutting the allowance from those who need it.

DomPost Editorial

The Dominion Post editorial from Friday looks at the issue of mayoral pay rises and the role of the Remuneration Authority. It says:

the authority is also required by statute to take account of prevailing economic conditions. The law recognises that politicians should not dwell in a rarefied atmosphere while those who pay their salaries scrape along beneath them.

and

The authority's latest determination, scheduled to take effect on July 1, suggests it is in danger of losing sight of one side of the equation. It will take the average increase awarded to the 15 mayors in the lower North Island over the past two years to 9.1 per cent.

I have always found the blinkers on the Remuneration Authority hard to believe. Their inability to take into account the global economic situation is incredible, or if they are taking it into account it asks the question what increases would they be giving in good economic times?

The Authority needs to take a good look at how it sets increases and needs to increase the weight it gives to the current economic climate and the lives of average New Zealanders. Politician's salaries need to be sufficient to attract talented people but if a politician believes they deserve a pay rise when voters are hurting they are failing the public service requirement of their job.