Kiwiblog

At 6 pm off to an ASPG event at Parliament on how the relationship between Parliament and the Executive — how it has evolved over the past 20 years and where the relationship might head over the next 20.

At 9 pm will be at Backbenches, where I’ll be doing a 60 second soapbox on the issue of the NZ Flag. I’ll even have some Canadian and Australian flags with me as visual props!

Tomorrow morning I’m one of three submitters appearing on the Electoral (Administration) Bill between 10 am and 11 am in Bowen House. This is the bill that merges the Electoral Commission with the Chief Electoral Office. The major issue all three submitters (The other two are Andrew Geddis and the NZ Law Society) have raised are that the new Commission should be an Independent Officer of Parliament, or the very least the appointment of Commissioners should not be decided by the Minister of Justice, but require parliamentary agreement.

The couple on the right are South Florida trade-show executive Vanessa Alenier and her partner, Melanie Leon. They just won custody and the right to adopt a one year old girl who was born to a relative who was unable to provide good care.

So this was keeping the child in the extended family. But the decision got attacked by certain religious groups, including the Florida Family Policy Council.

But the Orlando Sentinel revealed, the photo distributed with their media release condemning the court’s decision used the photo on the left. The actual lesbian couple looked far too nice and wholesome, so they found the most scary lesbian couple photo they could and used that instead.

Isn’t that disgusting?

Hat Tip: unPC Lesbian

The Herald says electoral law reform is on the right track:

The government has gone the right way about electoral finance reform, consulting all other parties as the previous Government did not.

Inevitably, therefore, the decisions announced yesterday contain some comfort for parties such as Labour that fear private money in politics, and some disappointment for those who welcome all contributions to public life.

My concern is that a future Labour Government will not be as restrained as National has been, and will force through changes that benefit them, even if other parties are opposed. What would be welcome is for Labour to make a clear declaration that they will not in future push through electoral law changes without a political consensus behind them.

There will be no relaxation of the restrictions on election broadcasts, which can be made only by political parties that have to make them with public money and must be kept within the amounts allocated.

It would be better to let, in fact insist, parties use their own money for television and radio commercials, or let them use public funding for any form of advertising they prefer. But Labour and the Green Party were strongly opposed to any change.

I agree. It is very disappointing that no change is recommended. I hope the Select Committee will be open to persuasion.

The decisions announced yesterday do not appear to go far towards resolving the misuse of parliamentary funds for election purposes. The usual rule is that parliamentary information money can be used to push party barrows as long as the material does not expressly urge a vote, a donation or membership of a party.

It is well past time a tougher test was imposed, and not just within three months of an election, which is the best we can expect from this exercise.

I think the likely tougher test during the regulated period would be a huge improvement. I do not think it is practical to have this tougher test during the entire electoral cycle as almost every publication put out by parliamentary parties has an element of seeking to influence voters towards them.

The Press attacks the Sea Shepherd publicity stunts:

Most New Zealanders recognise for the self-serving farce which it is the Japanese notion of scientific whaling and are appalled by the view that in order to conduct research into whales it is necessary to kill them.

But most people also believe that international pressure and setting, as New Zealand is doing, an example of non-lethal research are more likely to end whaling than the confrontational antics of the radical Sea Shepherd conservation group.

I hate the hypocrisy of the Japanese claiming the whaling is scientific research, but I hate the lunatics of Sea Shepherd even more.

The Dominion Post does not want the taxpayer funding an America’s Cup bid:

Prime Minister John Key says the Government might back a bid as its Labour predecessors did in 2003 and 2007. Labour put $30 million into the underfunded 2003 defence, $34m into the unsuccessful 2007 challenge in Valencia, and, immediately after that loss, pledged another $10m to Team NZ to stop crew members being poached.

Mr Key should think again. It is not the role of government to fund the sporting pursuits or obsessions of millionaire yachtsmen.

The time to put money into the cup was when there was a realistic prospect it would generate a financial dividend. That time has passed.

The cup is of sporting interest to only a small number of New Zealanders. The rules are obscure – and endlessly up for interpretation in court – the competitors are remote and the action is incomprehensible without a television set, computer graphics and the services of commentator Peter Montgomery.

The event’s primary attraction is as a magnet for the world’s wealthy. Hosting the 2003 regatta was reputedly worth $529m to Auckland businesses. The New Zealand team performed commendably in 2007, winning the challenger series and winning two races in the best of nine contest with Alinghi for the cup itself.

But with many of New Zealand’s best sailors now sailing for foreign syndicates and foreign billionaires lining up to bankroll challenges, the prospect of Team NZ again winning the cup is so slight that the Government should forget it.

I agree. Kiwis keep winning the Cup – but not for NZ syndicates.  Leave it to the billionaires to fund.

The ODT examines colonoscopies:

The report on the 33 colonoscopy patients and the Otago District Health Board is a mixed bag. It gives all sorts of detail about the board service, or lack of service, but it fails to spell out answers to basic questions about these patients.

Did the board provide timely and adequate colonoscopies? And was the treatment of these patients according to board and national criteria? What the report does say is that those audited did have “prolonged journeys” through the public system.

In “report speak” that seems to be saying that the answer to the first question is no.

Check early and check often!

I got 10/10 on the first Dominion Post politics quiz of 2010, and in a record 24 seconds. No educated guesses either.

Yep I tuned in last night. I was amused that the “HQ” for the show is at City Life Apartments off Queen Street, as that is my normal hotel in Auckland (I often can get a suite for $150). So I know a lot of the sights they film in the hotel.

I am not sure the show will work well in NZ. The US shows works for several reasons:

1. Working for Trump gets you an amazing network of contacts
2. Trump has presence and an ego, which work together
3. The tasks on the US show often involve working for iconic companies, and meeting heir top officials
4. The treats for the winning team are often amazing

The treat for the winning team last time was to have a dinner at Dine (in Sky City Grand). Now that is one of Auckland’s better restaurants, but hell I’ve had dinner there half a dozen times. This is not a place you have to book six months in advance. Getting to go there isn’t somethng that would be hard to do yourselves.

Serepisos as the boss, did better than I expected.  I liked it when he dissed the person who mispronounced his name. His two off-siders are not a match for George and Caroline.

Julie Jacobson is blogging her take on the series.

Kim Laurenson got fired last night. A pity really as I thought she performed quite well. On the other hand she is a real estate agent (if one more sends me unsolicited junk mail I will go postal) which is a negative, but she also owns a boutique clothing store and does Ironman triathlons.

Colin Espiner writes:

Voters are set to be bombarded by record levels of advertising during the next election, after Government moves to relax some campaign spending rules.

Bzzzt. I really wish one would not treat an opinion as a fact. As no third party came close to spending the $120,000 limit last time, it does not follow that having no limit will lead to record levels of advertising.

In a big change to the former Electoral Finance Act, National is proposing to allow lobbyists, such as unions or special interest groups, to spend any amount during election campaigns – provided they register with the Electoral Commission and identify themselves in their advertisements.

I will make a prediction now. The vast majority of third party spending will be unions advertising against National. In Australia the unions spends ten times as much as any other groups.

The move could see a return to the sort of high-spending negative campaign run against the Greens by the Exclusive Brethren during the 2005 election. In addition, lobby groups will be able to advertise for as well as against political parties – raising the possibility of “back door” donations that get around the limits on what politicians can spend.

This is just plain incorrect. A third party can not advertise in support of a political party unless the party agrees, in which case the spending counts as part of the party’s spending under their limit.

You can not get around the spending limit for advertising in favour of a party, by having a third party do it.

But the advertising can only take place in non-broadcast media, after the Government decided to keep current limits on broadcasting during campaigns in place.

They are not limits. They are a ban. The ban incidentally is almost certain to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

The Herald reports from Parliament:

Finally it was back to the Prime Minister for the last question – this time about his holding of shares in Jackson Mining.

Asked how he could not have known the company had merged with another and was now involved in uranium mining, he began with: “There was the small technical issue – I have been busy running the country.”

He added that he would be the first to admit it was “sloppy” but said the last time he had looked they were trading at 3.5c “and when I offered them to my son, who was 12 at the time, even he did not want them”.

I was absolutely stunned that TVNZ had as their lead story that the PM had admitted he was “sloppy”, as if this was Watergate II.In fact there was nothing that came within a million miles of being a conflict of interest.

John Key had declared the mining shares in his register of interests. This is what you are meant to do.

Now a conflict of interest tends to relate to something favouring a specific company, not something that affects an entire industry.

The mining company in question is Australian, does not operate in NZ, and has no plans to operate in NZ. Anyone who thinks this creates a conflict of interest, just because the Government is promoting mining is biased or stupid.

The Government promotes agriculture. So should Jim Bolger have had to sell his family farm when he was PM?

Helen Clark was a residential property investor. Should she have sold all her houses because the Government made decisions that affected rental properties?

Of course not. No reasonable person thinks that is a conflict of interest. If you adopt that standard, then every MP would be forced to liquidate all their assets and have only cash in a bank. But oh no, wait Government can affect banks, so lets force them to store their cash under their bed.

Having shares in an Australian mining company that does not operate in NZ is not a conflict of interest. Even if they did operate in NZ, it would not be a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest would be if a decision was made to grant some licence to that particular company, which the PM took part in.

The PMs statement that he had been sloppy, simply relates to the fact he hadn’t bothered to keep track of what the company was doing, as its shares were near worthless.

Now that may deserve a couple of paragraphs in a political story in a newspaper, but to have TVNZ make it their lead story is unbelievable.

UPDATE: Colin Espiner has previously blogged much the same thing:

As for the mining story, I’m a bit nonplussed. Frankly I don’t give a monkey’s whether Key owns shares in an Australian mining company, and I think TVNZ’s pretext that it’s a story because the Government is planning to mine national parks is a little flimsy.

If owning shares in a mining company could become an issue, it should already be an issue, since there is already extensive mining in this country. And we’ve known for ages that Key’s share portfolio includes mining companies. I remember him talking about it during the election campaign.

As for the second leg of the story – that it’s a bad look for a PM of a nuclear-free country to own shares in a company that mines uranium – I’m sorry, but I don’t get that. Uranium might be a precursor to the manufacture of plutonium, which is used in nuclear weapons.

But it’s also used in a vast array of medical and scientific procedures. I’ve always thought it funny that people claim we’re “nuclear free” when there’s enough plutonium in our hospitals and universities to make your hair fall out.

This is about TVNZ promoting itself. Because the so called “revelation” was made on a TVNZ show, that means they feel they have to keep it alive as a news story.

The Herald reports:

A working group of MPs has asked that parents of the worst- and best-performing students be given greater choice about how and where the child is educated and be able to take their government funding with them.

The Government was considering a modified version of the education voucher scheme for the 20 per cent worst-performing and 5 per cent best-performing students aged 6 to 16 years.

The working group on school choice was set up under Act and National’s supply and confidence agreement and chaired by Act deputy leader Heather Roy and made up of MPs from National, Act and the Maori Party

The report is online here.

I’m very supportive of any initiative that increases choice and flexibility for parents and pupils, like this one does.

The Herald reports:

The most unpopular features of MMP could be ditched if voters opt to keep the electoral system in the referendum on it at next year’s election.

Justice Minister Simon Power revealed yesterday that if voters decide to keep MMP, it will be reviewed by the Electoral Commission.

Among the subjects Mr Power listed for such a review are:

Dual candidacy, which enables MPs who lose an electorate seat to be returned to Parliament through the party list. Examples are Labour’s Lynne Pillay and Rick Barker.

Closed party lists, where the party list is chosen by the party rather than a voters’ ranking of candidates.

Thresholds of 5 per cent and one electorate seat, under which where a party with less than 5 per cent of the vote can get seats in Parliament if it wins an electorate seat.

Overhang, where a party winning more electorate seats than its share of the party vote increases the size of Parliament above 120 MPs. In 2008, the Maori Party got two more electorate MPs than its share of the party vote, taking Parliament to 122 MPs.

The balance between the number of list and constituency MPs.

Having the review done by the Electoral Commission is rather brave, as they may recommend changes MPs do not want. For example, there is no way parties will vote to change to open lists, rather than party-selected closed lists.

The dual candidacy issue is rather difficult. People don’t like the electorate MP they booted out, remaining an MP, still based in their electorate. I fully understand that. However I don’t think many people seriously think that (for example) Chris Finlayson should not be a List MP because he was the near-token National candidate for Rongotai. If you have such a ban, then it simply means high calibre MPs like Chris will not stand in an opposition held seat at all.

One possible compromise is that you do not ban joint candidacy, but if an electorate MP loses their seat, they are ineligible to be elected as a List MP. That would give electorate MPs an incentive to fight harder to keep their seats, and if they think they may not, they can decide whether to seek a list only nomination and let someone else stand for the seat.

Personally I don’t favour any ban on joint candidacy, but if there is to be a ban, I would rather it is partial, not total.

Simon Power has also announced details of the MMP referenda.

1. Referendum in 2011 will ask whether they wish to retain the present MMP voting system.
2. A second question will ask what alternative voting system they would prefer from FPP, PV, SM and STV, regardless of how they voted in the first question.
3. If people vote not to retain MMP in 2011, then a run-off referendum in 2014 will be held between MMP and the preferred alternative.
4. If people vote to retain MMP, the Electoral Commission will be asked to review our MMP system and recommend desirable changes.

Two issues I think the select committee should consider:

1. Should the second question on alternate voting systems be a preferential vote? I think it would be better if it was, ensuring that the most widely supported option runs off against MMP.
2. Can the 2014 date for the second referendum be held earlier? I initially had the view it must be with the 2014 election, as that ensures a high turnout. However upon reflection I think the second referendum will get a very high turnout even if not at the same time as an election.

The Herald praises the Tamaki deal:

The Auckland agreement is a credit to all leaders of the tribes concerned, particularly those of Ngati Whatua who have had to endure challenges to their long cherished tangata whenua status on the isthmus. It is also a credit to the Government’s appointed interlocutor, Sir Douglas Graham, that the vexed issues appear to have been resolved fairly rapidly and amicably.

The Press looks at cycle trails:

With 54 regions across the country bidding for a slice of $50 million earmarked for the New Zealand Cycle Trail project, there were always going to be winners and losers.

Unfortunately, when the Ministry of Tourism released the list last week of which 13 proposals got the nod, and the money, to proceed to the feasibility study stage, Environment Canterbury’s Mountains to Sea trail from Arthur’s Pass to the Waimakariri River mouth was not among them. There will still be a cycleway from the mountains to the sea, but this Alps to Ocean scheme will be located further south, between Aoraki/Mt Cook and Oamaru.

When the cycle trail proposal was unveiled by its architect, Prime Minister John Key, as one of the few concrete projects to emerge from his overhyped Job Summit, there were plenty of sceptics. Certainly his idea of a national cycle trail running the length of the country has been pared back to a more affordable series of individual rides showcasing natural attractions.

But the number of bids for funding suggests that Key’s idea has defied its initial critics and captured the imagination of many New Zealanders and local councils.

The Dominion Post talks homework:

There is an important qualification in Professor Hattie’s dismissal of homework. He says “it’s far more important to have interaction with parents rather than spending some hours on some project”. The key is the interaction with parents. Nothing will be gained by the Karori pupils, or those of other schools that abandon homework, if interaction with parents turns instead into more time in front of the television or computer screen.

Just as parents ultimately take responsibility for ensuring homework is done, in the end it will be up to them to make the no-homework strategy work.

I’m just glad I don’t have homework anymore!

The ODT discusses campervans:

It would not be unfair to say members of the Otago Conservation Board are a group of somewhat “unhappy campers”.

Their call for a national ban on the use of campervans smacks of a cause in search of publicity.

If their initiative in voting unanimously to draft a letter to their Department of Conservation seniors, calling on the Government to create legislation towards such a ban, has raised a fair old stink, they would say it is nothing compared to what the tourists in their four-wheeled portable tents are doing to the countryside.

Such a ban is, of course, a far-fetched proposal and is highly unlikely to gain serious traction, but it might be argued that the board, in promoting it, has done the country, the rental vehicle and tourism industries, and regional and district authorities a favour.

It might be argued. It might also be argued that have made the Board look like unbalanced zealots.

Simon Power has announced the Government’s electoral finance reform package:

The Government has today announced its reform package for electoral finance laws.

Justice Minister Simon Power says the decisions are the result of a thorough process.

“The package comes after extended consultation with all parliamentary parties and the public.

“As a result, Cabinet has decided to progress reforms only where there is broad public and political support.

“If we are to have a system which is fair, workable, enduring, and in place before the 2011 election, broad consensus is essential.”

Sadly, this means that many good reforms are not occurring. I will detail these below. There are some useful changes, but I am frustrated that some really stupid parts of the law are remaining.

However I have great sympathy for the need to have broad support for the electoral law, so that changes to electoral law do not become the ultimate prize of the victor, trying to skew the playing field to keep them in power (as Labour did with the Electoral Finance Act).

Effectively Simon Power (and Cabinet) has given Labour a veto over major reforms. I don’t like the outcomes this has led to, but do think it is generally the right thing to do, to not force changes through which don’t have widespread support.

It is the polar opposite of what Labour, the Greens and NZ First did with the Electoral Finance Act.

The Cabinet paper is here. Major aspects are:

1. Parallel campaigners who spend more than $12,000 must register with the Electoral Commission, but there is no spending limits of such campaigners.
2. Spending limits for parties and candidates to be inflation adjusted for future elections, but no increase to compensate for the lack of such adjustments since 1993.
3. The definition of an election advertisement will exempt personal political opinions on the Internet
4. One does not have to use your home address on election advertisements
5. The Electoral Commission can give advisory opinions on the legality of proposed advertisements
6. A new requirement that parties disclose all their income from donations in bands, including those below the disclosure threshold
7. Include an associated persons test to make it harder to do what NZ First did, and not disclose donations as they were from seperate companies, even though they had the same owner.
8. No change to the regulated period or the broadcasting regime.
9. A proposal to align parliamentary and electoral advertising rules

My thoughts on the changes are as follows:

1. A pretty major win with no limit for parallel campaigners. It is not that I want third parties spending huge amounts of money for or against a party (the unions tend to be the biggest spenders) but that it is wrong for MPs to legislate to restrict the amount of criticism that can be advertised against them. Also the public are quite capable of forming their own views about very expensive campaigns.
2. The lack of any change to the broadcasting regime is hugely disappointing. It is quite simply wrong that parties can not purchase their own advertising on radio or television, and also that effetively the major parties get a higher overall spending limit than smaller parties.  I also think it is wrong that current parties in Parliament get so much of the broadcasting allocation. Labour and the Greens refused to back change here, so the Government did not proceed.
3. I am rather pleased with the decision to have further transparency with donations, by having disclosure in bands of all income. I proposed this at both stages of the review as it will give the public a more accurate picture of a party’s funding. It will be interesting to see under the OIA who else, if anyone, proposed this.
4. The associated persons test for donations is very much needed to prevent what NZ First did.
5. The lack of an increase to party and (especially) candidate spending limits is regrettable as they are too low, and prevent candidates from being able to do even basic communications such as direct mail. Even the Green Party supported retrospective inflation adjustments back to 1993, but Labour did not support this, so it did not proceed.
6. While it is good the length of the regulated period has not increased from three months, I am astonished they did not go for a fixed start date of 1 August to avoid the current problem of candidates not knowing when the regulated period starts until they are halfway through it. I will be interested to discover under the OIA why this change did not occur. As far as I can tell from the Cabinet paper it may have been technical problems with snap elections.
7. Allowing the Electoral Commission to issue advisory opinions on advertisements is very welcome. It should be difficult to breach the law.
8. Also very sensible to allow a non-home address on advertisements so long as one can still contact the identified promoter.
9. There is a proposal that Parliament ban use of parliamentary funds, during the regulated period, on any publicity material that can be deemed electioneering under the Electoral Act. I strongly support this and proposed such an action. Outside the regulated period only material which explicitly calls for votes (or members or money) is banned, but during the regulated period anything which even appears to encourage support for a party or candidate will not be able to be funded by the taxpayers.

I back the change package as announced, and will submit on them. My criticism is about the changes not made. Hopefully over time a consensus can be gained to do further reform.

Richard Long writes:

When the market men suggest we should all migrate to Australia, and the Left are screaming about the Government robbing the poor to give tax cuts to the rich, Prime Minister John Key can figure he got the pitch just about right.

He hasn’t gone nearly far enough for coalition partner Act, which would have been tempted to grab the Don Brash ”catching up with Australia” review as a policy blueprint, but he has pushed the boat out about as far as he can go with coalition partner the Maori Party by indicating a rise in GST to 15 per cent to fund the tax cuts. …

Mr Key and Finance Minister Bill English are operating in the aftermath of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. They need not flounder over broken promises, as they did last week over their earlier comments rejecting a GST increase.

John Maynard Keynes set the example for this when he was accused, during the Great Depression, of changing position on monetary policy. The great man responded: ”When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”

Among the exciting prospects in the Key blueprint is the pledge to expand oil exploration and to survey areas of the Crown estate to see just what treasures are underneath. Oil has come from nowhere to be our No 3 export, after dairying and tourism. And who knows what mining riches we could discover in the form of gold,  diamonds and rare minerals to pay off those budget deficits and fund our children’s superannuation in the  years ahead.

Richard mischievously goes on to say he hopes they find uranium in Fiordland

The Herald reports:

A directive from the Ministry of Education telling an Opposition MP that information requests needed to be answered by the minister was a communications blunder, the ministry says.

Labour Party state services spokesman Grant Robertson said he would write to the State Services Commission and ask it to investigate after MP Ruth Dyson made an inquiry to the ministry regarding policy about funding for disabled students.

She said she was trying to support the parents of a student whose support funding had been cut and was told that operational issues raised at a local level by government MPs could be dealt with locally, but requests for information from non-government MPs needed to go to the relevant minister formally for a response. …

The ministry said yesterday the directive given to Ms Dyson appeared to be the result of a staff member misunderstanding the rules.

Senior ministry manager Jim Matheson said the error was “regrettable”.

“The ministry will take steps to ensure such an error will not be repeated.”

It is 99% likely to just be a stuff up, but it is an important principle that MPs dealing with constituents issues are treated equally.

I think it would be useful to have the SSC to investigate – not so much to find any improper behaviour, but to send out a signal to other agencies how important it is not to make mistakes like this.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Australia now earns more than A$1 billion annually from exporting uranium ore concentrate. By 2014, that figure is expected to be A$1.7 billion.

There are tight controls: Australian uranium is produced only for export and is used only for peaceful purposes in civil nuclear power stations outside of Australia and is trumpeted as a contributor to global climate relief.’

The reason Australia doesn’t have a suite of nuclear power stations is it burns cheap coal for power.

But NZ is stuck in a 1980s cul de sac: Nuclear equals bad.

Secondly, is the PM now expected to order the administrator of his blind trust not to invest in any company that could be mining uranium simply because New Zealand has anti-nuclear laws?

If so, that rules out many companies with diverse interests. Bizarre really.

I thought it was bizarre. Nuclear power is indeed a way to reduce carbon emissions, so wy the fuss over the PM having shares in a company that helps reduce carbon emissions.

A reader has alerted me to this fascinating law paper at Auckland University:

LAW495 Colonialism to Globalisation

In the late 15th century, imperialist Europe emerged intent on exploring and possessing the New World. Fast forward through five hundred years of colonialism, capitalism, slavery, industrialisation, genocide, and international law and greet the 21st century in all its paradoxical glory. We now live in a world characterised by political binaries: developed & underdeveloped; civilised & primitive; wealthy & poor; lawful & unlawful. Did international law play a part in introducing the new world to the old one and, more insidiously, in dispossessing the new one for the benefit of the old one?

I love how capitalism is inserted in there along with slavery and genocide.

Following a brief review of historical inequity, we will turn our attention to the colonial origins of international law and its role in facilitating the subordination of native inhabitants in favour of European settlers. Our examination will then take us through a series of case studies – human rights, intellectual property rights, military interventions, labour (de)regulation, and the world trading system – all of which will be considered primarily from the hushed perspectives of the Third World.

I may be wrong here but I suspect if you hand in an essay about how free trade based on an international legal framework is responsible for lifting tens of millions out of poverty, then you’re not going to get an A.

I may be wrong of course. Would love to hear from any current or former students who did the course.

There are 10 types of people in the world, those that know binary and those that don’t.

Backbenches returns to TVNZ7 and the Backbencher at 9 pm on Wednesday.

The MPs for the first week back are:

• Hekia Parata, National
• Clayton Cosgrove, Labour
• John Boscawen, ACT
• Metiria Turei, Greens

The BBC has a Q&A with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

I found it very interesting, and recommend people read it. He is very upfront on what do know, and do not know, and what periods of warming have and have not been significant, such as:

As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

and

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

So from 1995 to 2009, there has been warming, but not at a level to be deemed significant, and likewise from 2002 to 2009 there has been cooling but not at a level to be deemed significant.

What this signifies to me is that the data over the next five years or so will be very important – it may either push the post 1995 era into significant warming, or the post 2002 era into significant cooling. The chances of post 2002 era being a statistically significant cooling are less, as it is a shorter period.

Nat Torkington was wearing this t-shirt at Kiwi Foo Camp and I loved it. So close to reality!

You can order them from Despair.

While I appreciate some of  Professor Hattie’s view on National Standards I am a little perplexed around his view that homework is a waste of time for most children.

I like homework because it keeps me, as a parent, connected into the school.  I know what my child is studying, I have some feel for their progress, and it is a way that my son and I can work together to increase his skill set.

I got quite a shock when I moved my son from a kindergarten that set weekly homework to a primary school that only encouraged reading homework and no more.  I am concerned that by removing homework we are removing one bridge between school and home.  Homework can encourage children to think more widely, to use problem solving skills that aren’t available or fed to them by their teacher.  Homework can also encourage children to take their interests outside of the classroom back into the classroom.

Like National Standards, homework can assist a parent to gauge how well their child is progressing.  I certainly hope that the removal of homework is not a union-designed mechanism to pull back on National Standards.

Professor Hattie encourages parents to set their own time together for learning with their children. From my experience, a lot of parents don’t know how to do that.  Homework, even just an investigative question to answer, can guide parents that don’t know how to open up the world of learning to their children.   I am an active parent and have a few activities up my sleeve  and even books to refer to for ideas but that can take time.  The upside of homework set by teachers is that it is focused at the child’s learning level, and for some parents it is a whole lot faster having a starting point than umming and erring about what could be set – the television remote is definitely their friend.

I do understand that some parents find homework a difficult time of the day – they struggle with it themselves, or they have just rushed home for work to cook dinner and million other chores BUT good parents still find the time to do the homework.  By removing homework set by teachers I hate to say it but a whole lot of parents who don’t have the tools to think of parent-led homework ideas won’t do it at all.  Do we then risk mediocrity?  No need to do extra work to go the extra distance, is there?

I am even an advocate for homework at five years of age.  I have seen it work for three and four year olds so why not five?  At five, the child is being set up in all sorts of other routines and standards of behaviour within the school so why not homework, expectations, learning strategies and the like?  Hell, they could even have competitions to see which kid can find the most words beginning with the letter ‘p’ and have a bit of writing practice at the same time.  Oh wait, dirty word that ‘competition’ stuff.

I really do understand that some kids don’t like homework.  I also understand some parents don’t like it… and the teachers that have to mark it – or encourage the children to share it in class.  Homework should stay. Homework can encourage lifelong learning.  Homework can help parents parent better, and teachers teach better.

No Right Turn gives us a great example of the difference between an academic theoretical analysis, and understanding the real word.

He blogs on income distribution:

So, the median income is around the decile 5 boundary of $23,000 a year. …

So, 78% of us don’t even pay the middle tax rate, and the top tax rate is utterly irrelevant to 91% of the population. Remember that next time the government or the media talk about “middle-income” tax cuts – they’re not talking about you, or most of New Zealand. Instead, they’re only talking about themselves.

The Standard have made the same mistake also. You see in New Zealand, we have these things called families and households. What No Right Turn sees as a mass of poor people who will be unaffected by tax cuts, are spouses, older children, many students and even parents of those who do earn more than $23,000 a year, or even $48,000 a year.

If a family has one parent earning $60,000 a year, and one on $15,000 part-time, they both benefit from a change to the 33% tax rate. Because they are a family!!

Likewise most students still get some support from their parents. The income deciles are for adults aged 15 and over, so that covers Year 11 to 13 at school plus full-time tertiary students. And many of those students will have higher salaries once they are not studying.

There are also those on benefits who don’t pay any net income tax. Remember 76% of net income tax is paid by 10% of the population.  But if you are retired and earning just $25,000 a year, that doesn’t mean you are against tax cuts, because you are happy that your adult children will benefit from them.

So ignore the stupid stats and graphs about individual incomes. They are relevant to academic theory, rather than the real world. Household Family income is what affects most people. Now as of June 2009, the median household income was around $64,000. 30% of households have income over $93,000.

If a household is a couple with at least one child, the median annual household income is around $75,000.

Here is what would be a more useful stat. Of households or families that have at least one adult in full-time work, how many of them have at least one adult earning over $48,000 (the threshold for the 33% rate).  It will be a lot more than 22%.

Barnsley at Gotcha is worried about the theme of a cartoon blogged by Trevor at Red Alert, but I’m more interested in the increasing shrillness of the posts.

First he basically called John Key a racist because John criticised Hone Harawira, now he calls Anne Tolley a liar because she claimed to fully understand the national standards system, and Trevor proclaimed that no living person can possibly fully understand the system, so she must be a liar. Sounds bizarre, but this is true. I’ll take you through it slowly.

Trevor asked in Parliament:

Hon Trevor Mallard: Going back to the primary answer, is she in the group of 11.9 percent who claim that they fully understand her system or in the 88 percent who acknowledge that they do not?

This was in relation to a Herald poll that found 88% o people did not fully understand national standards. Now Trevor was obviously trying to get Tolley to say she did not understand her own national standards system. Anne tried to avoid a direct answer to the equivalent of a “Have you stopped beating your wife” type question but Lockwood showed why he is such a fair Speaker and insisted Anne give a direct answer,which was:

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand perfectly well what the national standards are …

Trevor then blogs:

… everyone that has half a brain knows that  no one can fully understand a system that vital components of, including what will be an expensive and time consuming moderation system,  have not been designed yet.

So, once again, Tolley is a liar …

So think carefully about Trevor’s logic here. He is saying that no one at all in the entire world can claim to understand the national standards system, and that anyone claiming to is a liar.

It is the sort of verbal semantics you expect from a ten year old, not a former Minister of Education. In Trevor’s world Anne has to either say I don’t understand the National Standards system, or she is a liar. This is why I call it a “Have you stopped beating your wife” question – there is no good answer.

By itself I would not blink – we all know Mallard hates Tolley and his idea of Opposition is to abuse and denigrate her. But when you look at the nonsense over calling Key a racist because Key criticised Hone Harawira, well I think there is a pattern of increasing shrillness or worse.