Kiwiblog

Maybe DC just wants to be Opposition Leader

I blog at Stuff:

There are not a lot of glass ceilings left in New Zealand for women to break through. Two of the last three prime ministers were women. Two of the last five governors-general were women. The Speaker of the House before the current one was a woman. The chief justice role has been held by a woman since 1999 and Dame Sian is not due to retire until 2021. Also the then largest company in New Zealand (Telecom) was headed by a woman just a few years ago. …

Though in 2011 there are not many glass ceilings to break, there is still a serious under-representation of women in Parliament. Sadly the proportion of women in Parliament dropped this year for the first time since 1996.

Now I’m not one of those who advocates that Parliament must or should exactly match the population in gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, left-handedness and so on. I think competence and quality is the most important qualification. However, so long as the MPs are high quality and competent, I think it is desirable that Parliament is indeed a House of Representatives, and our Representatives do reflect the diversity of New Zealand.

So I would like to see more quality, competent women elected into Parliament. But working out what the major barriers are is not so easy. …

d

The Dom Post editorial:

Among those most depressed on election night were probably many teachers, their trade unions, and school principals.

I’m not so sure about “many” teachers. Most teachers don’t give a stuff about politics and just want to get on with teaching. It is the teacher politicians who devote most of their energy to educational politics that would have been depressed, but they are a minority of teachers.

The first John Key-led government made a priority of ensuring children can read and write – the foundation for all later learning – and parents getting school reports in plain English.

Known by its shorthand name, national standards, the policy was steadfastly adhered to by Mr Key, who consulted educational experts before the 2008 election on what would make the most difference to the one in five children who leave school illiterate and innumerate.

The policy was equally steadfastly opposed by the primary teachers’ union and the Principals’ Federation, chiefly on ideological grounds.

Their biggest fear is that once data on how schools are doing under national standards is reported to the Education Ministry, it will be available to the whole community, which will learn which of the schools they fund from their taxes perform best.

Outraegous. I’m waiting for Labour to announce a policy that they will ban league tables not only for schools, but also for hospitals. It is appalling that Tony Ryall publishes which DHBs have the quickest times for A&E waiting times and cancer radiation treatment. Not all DHBs have the same sort of patients, and Ryall’s hospital league tables should be banned as they are unfair to the hospitals not at the top.

But it is criminal that up to 20 per cent of students leave school unable to read, write and do arithmetic.

Former Labour Party president and new Howard League for Penal Reform chief executive Mike Williams gets it: he is desperate to find literacy teachers willing to help prison inmates. Why would that be necessary if current education policy works as well as teachers claim? After all, those jailbirds went to school somewhere.

The NZ educational system works very well for the average student. However it works very badly for the bottom 20% and not that great for the top 10%.

If children who are failing can be helped to succeed by a different prescription – think kura kaupapa or Rudolf Steiner, for example – the trial is worth conducting to see what can be learned from it.

Absolutely. A great win for ACT and for New Zealand.

NZ Herald reports:

Chinese New Zealand businesses, including one formerly owned by the businessman spearheading Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for the Crafar dairy farms, have boosted the National Party’s coffers by more than $100,000 in recent days.

Recent filings to the Electoral Commission show National received $50,000 on November 22 from Citi Financial Group, a Queen St foreign exchange and financial planning firm owned by Yan Yang and Qiang Wei.

The same day, the party got a $1600 donation from Oravida NZ, which also gave $55,000 on November 30.

Oravida’s directors are Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu and wealthy but reclusive businessman Deyi Shi.

In September last year when it was called Kiwi Dairy, Oravida was bought from Terry Lee, a businessman associated with Shanghai Pengxin, which has applied for Overseas Investment Office approval to buy the Crafar farms.

It is good the disclosure regime is working. Transparency is important and media should report large donations

Turning to the Oravida donation, the key word is former owner. Terry Lee has not owned the company for 14 months, and the new owners have nothing to do with the Crafar farms bid as far as I know. Some people get very excited about former owners, assuming it means they are still in a position of influence with their former company, and/or wanting to advantage them. The prime example of this is how some go on about Steven Joyce being a former owner of the radio stations now owned by Mediaworks. What many do not realise is it was a hostile takeover, and shall we say no love lost there between the former and current owner.

So as far as I know there is no actual link to the Crafar farm bid. Ironically if someone associated with the bid for the Crafar farms did donate a large amount to National, my belief is that it would actually harm their chances as even if the OIO recommended approval, Ministers would be very wary of making a decision that could be perceived as influenced by the donation.

Incidentally what is a Chinese New Zealand business? Both businesses are New Zealand businesses. Oravida has three directors – two of whom live in NZ and one in New York. The ultimate shareholders all appear to be based in New Zealand also. CFG director and shareholders all appear to be New Zealanders also.

There is a difference between a business owned by Chinese living in China and Chinese living in New Zealand. Chinese living in China are foreigners. Chinese living (permanently) in New Zealand are Kiwis.

• Sat 10 Dec – Publication of final results
• Sun 11 Dec – confidence and supply agreement with Maori Party, confirmation of majority
• Mon 12 Dec – PM announces Ministers and portfolios
• Tue 13 Dec – Labour elects Leader and Deputy (and maybe Whips)
• Wed 14 Dec – PM and Ministers sworn in and warranted by Governor-General and 1st Cabinet meeting
• Tue 20 Dec – 50th Parliament convenes for swearing in of MPs and election of Speaker
• Wed 21 Dec – Speech from the Throne

Stuff reports:

A heavily intoxicated Blenheim man slept between railway tracks as a train rumbled over him in Blenheim early on Saturday, police say.

The train driver telephoned police and told them he might have run over somebody on the railway tracks at the Dillons Pt Rd crossing in Blenheim about 5am.

“The driver wasn’t sure if it was clothing he had gone over or not,” Constable Michelle Stagg of Blenheim police said.

“When police arrived, sure enough there he was, asleep between the tracks.”

Police woke the man, who they said was very drunk, and found his only injuries were some minor cuts to his forehead. He had been lying on his back between the tracks as the southbound freight train passed over him.

“He was very lucky to have only a few minor cuts on him. It’s amazing really,” Stagg said.

Very very lucky to be alive. At first I wondered how drunk do you have to be, to fall asleep on a railway track?

But perhaps the more incredible aspect is that even after a train passed over him by a few inches, he still remained asleep!!

I’m guessing an alarm clock would be wasted on this guy.

Most of the focus has been on the leadership contest for Labour, but the battle for Deputy Leader is also interesting with Grant Robertson and Nanaia Mahuta both standing for it.

Effectively they are both standing on tickets with Shearer and Cunliffe respectively except that in the former’s case they are pretending it is not a ticket by not calling it that. I tend to subscribe to the theory that if it looks like a duck ……

The caucus though will have two separate votes for the positions, and will only vote for Deputy Leader when they know whom the leader is. It is possible at that point, one of the contenders would pull pull out, so there is no risk of the Leader ending up with a Deputy who was not backing them.

The conventional wisdom is that Shearer is ahead of Cunliffe at the moment, so Robertson one can assume is also more likely to become Labour Deputy Leader. If this eventuates this overall could be very powerful for Labour. But first the negative.

I’ve blogged before that the ideal deputy leader is one that doesn’t want to be leader, and I stand by this. Now this does not mean that I think Grant personally is a disloyal person who would be sitting there from day one plotting to undermine the leader and become leader. I don’t think that is Grant’s style or record. Also Grant is a relatively young guy with a pretty safe seat, and knows his best route to the leadership is to be part of a winning team, where his support for the leader is unquestionable.

However events can mean things are not that easy. If for some reason (assuming Shearer is Leader), Shearer fails to fire and after 18 months is struggling in the polls, then media will focus on the deputy leader and ask whether or not he should be leader. They will every week ask the deputy if he rules out a challenge, and of course no person can ever totally rule out a change, so a response with wriggle room will be given, and the media will note the wriggle room and the speculation becomes destabilising. I saw this first hand when Jenny Shipley was National Leader and Bill English her Deputy. I even recall the press secretary who had to go between the two of them negotiating a wording for his denial of plans to become Leader, but one that does not make you a liar should a change become necessary – which it eventually did. Very rarely will a Shermanesque denial be given which includes the statement “If nominated I will not accept”.

So the risk if Grant is Deputy is not that Grant will be disloyal. He is a team player. It is that if the leader does not perform as expected, that he will be promoted as a viable alternative – especially is as Deputy Leader he is seen to be performing better than the Leader.

Goff survived as Leader to contest the 2011 election because no one else in Labour wanted the job before the election. They were prepared to lose this election. However the caucus will be more hard headed going into 2014. The thought of a third term for National and nine years in Opposition for Labour will be deeply horrific to them. So if a Leader is not performing, then a change before 2014 would be more likely to occur. However I should state that it is not my expectation that either Shearer or Cunliffe would not perform well, so this scenario is a possibility not a probability.

Somewhat unfairly to Grant I’ve written more than I intended on the possible downside of his deputy leadership. The upside is not so long, but it is more powerful. It all relates to what the role of a deputy leader can and should be in a successful leadership team.

I think the best combinations of leader and deputy are like those in a great school. The school principal provides the leadership to the staff and students, while the deputy principal effectively manages the day to day running of the school.

A good deputy will, on behalf of the leader, help manage the caucus and the leader’s office. They will provide political management and sort out all but the biggest issues, freeing up the leader to lead and focus on convincing 400,000 more New Zealanders to vote for the party.

Robertson should be incredibly effective as this type of political deputy leader. His background in NZUSA, working for Hobbs and then as H3 to Clark gives him a wealth of experience in political management. Every day a parliamentary team has to decide what questions to be asking in Parliament, what press releases to put out on what issues etc.

So overall Robertson should be a very effective Deputy Leader for Labour if he gets elected.I would take one issue with his statement at Red Alert:

I know that I can hold my own and best any of the National frontbench in Parliament and on the hustings.

I’ve often blogged in the past about my respect for Grant’s skills and certain higher ups in National tease me relentlessly about a statement I once made that Robertson will give Ryall a much much tougher time in health. I’d even go so far to say they mock me for that statement, as the reality is that Ryall hasn’t even been mildly nuzzled by Robertson in the House, let alone savaged.

So I think it is a wee bit premature to be claiming you can best any of the National frontbench in Parliament. The evidence to date hasn’t shown that. However I think in National’s second term it will be easier for Labour MPs like Grant to land some blows.

Stuff reports:

SFO boss Adam Feeley confirmed the total estimated value of the allegedly fraudulent transactions was about $1.7 billion, which includes an esimated $1.59 billion from entering the Crown Retail Deposits Guarantee Scheme. …

“The collapse of SCF was one the most significant of all the failed finance companies. The value of the fraud alleged to have been committed exceeds anything in the history of white-collar crime in New Zealand, and the time we have taken to complete this matter is a reflection of that scale,” Feeley said.

The SFO spent 14 months investigating the company and the charges it has laid cover a variety of offences, including theft by a person in a special relationship; obtaining by deception; false statements by the promoter of a company; and false accounting. The offences carry maximum penalties of between seven and ten years imprisonment.

“It is not appropriate at this point to comment on details of the allegations, but the investigation itself has been one of the most resource-intensive and time-consuming in recent history,” Feeley said.

SCF founder and chairman and Allan Hubbard, was facing 50 fraud charges relating to his private investment vehicles Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds, but was killed in a car accident in September.

This won’t restore the money to those who lost it, principally taxpayers, but it is important there is accountability over SCF’s management and alleged mismanagement.

Of course it is up to the trial process to determine if any laws were broken, and by whom.

The person behind the David Cunliffe support site has revealed their identity, which is a good thing.

He is David Hawkins. Not the former Mayor of Papakura, but as I understand it, the former Executive Assistant to Te Atatu MP Chris Carter.

This doesn’t mean of course that Chris Carter himself is backing Cunliffe, but it would be ironic if it turns out that David Cunliffe is backed by both Kabul and New York, rather than the former UN manager David Shearer. Is this a schism in the UN vote?

The Canterbury Star reports:

One of Canterbury’s newest MPs wants to ban the burqa and arm bank tellers, dairy owners and taxi drivers.  

NZ First list MP Richard Prosser garnered just 538 votes in the Waimakariri electorate, but swept into Parliament on the strength of party leader Winston Peters’ rise from the grave.  

He makes no apology for the strength of the controversial Rightist ideas he has been pushing for almost 10 years. 

Oh armed taxi drivers would be hilarious fun. You know how the taxi drivers honks and curses when someone cuts them off in traffic? Well now they’ll be able to mow them down.

And think if two drivers get into a dispute over a cab rank. They can sort it out with a duel.

On compulsory military training: “There will be the pacifists, the weaklings, the other cowards and bludgers … who will conscientiously object … they can spend a couple of years picking up rubbish off the beaches and digging out long-drops for DOC instead.”

At least with CMT, people will be better equipped to handle being shot at by bank tellers or taxi drivers.

“As recently as 1973 every bank in New Zealand had a pistol under the counter and tellers undertook regular revolver training.

Really? Can someone confirm this?

He suggests “dairy owners and householders alike” should be allowed to have a “shotgun within reach, and taxi drivers as well as cops should almost be required to have at least a Walther PPK clipped to the sun visor”.

I like how he specifies the brand of the gun. I hope us bloggers will be allowed them also to cope with the stalkers.

I love how so many lefties tactically voted to get NZ First into Parliament. They have made life so much more enjoyable for us bloggers.

Brian Edwards blogs:

Praising Shearer’s freshness and dismissing his lack of experience in the bear pit of the Debating Chamber as irrelevant has almost become the norm in comparing him with Cunliffe. I was on that side of the argument myself when Shearer first threw his hat in the ring. But I’ve changed my mind.  

Shearer has had nearly three years to demonstrate his skill as a debater and about a fortnight to provide some evidence of competence in handling the media. He has done neither. His television appearances have bordered on the embarrassing. He lacks fluency and fails to project confidence or authority. Watching him makes you feel nervous and uncomfortable – a fatal flaw.

My problem is that I just can’t imagine him on his feet in the House footing it with the Prime Minister or any of his hugely experienced lieutenants. And a Leader of the Opposition must have a mastery not just of his own portfolios but of every portfolio. Clark had just such a mastery, but it was the product of 18 years experience in the Debating Chamber before she became Prime Minister.

I think Brian makes some good points, but I would point out the next election is in three years times, not three months time. Shearer’s decision to stand for the leadership is a recent one, so he hasn’t done the stuff aspiring leaders normally do such as media training and debating. He will never be a Michael Cullen in the House, but Michael would have never been elected PM.

And then there’s Cunliffe. We’re told there’s a group in the Labour caucus whose ABC mantra is ‘anyone but Cunliffe’. It’s hard to imagine a more childish or stupid approach. Your job, ladies and gentlemen,  is to choose someone who can win the next election, not someone who makes you feel warm and fuzzy. And when you’re making that choice you might like to consider this fact: above almost everything else, Kiwis like leaders who project strength. Kirk, Muldoon, Clark are prime examples. None of them was particularly ‘nice’. Rowling, Lange and Goff were ‘nice’. QED.

Cunliffe may or may not be nice, but he is hugely experienced, has an in-depth understanding of policy, conveys confidence and authority, handles the media superbly and can make mincemeat of anyone on the other side of the House. His ambition should be seen as an advantage not a disadvantage.

My instinct is that the Labour Party is about to make a huge mistake. Their logic, I suspect, is that they must replace an unpopular leader with a popular leader. But it is shallow thinking. What the next Leader of the Opposition must be able to do is best and bring down John Key. That really isn’t a job for ‘a nice guy’.

I am definitely not an ABC person, but of course I am not a member of the Labour caucus. I have considerable respect for David Cunliffe, having worked with him on some of the telco reforms. And on a personal level I’ve never seen the stuff that some people go on about. Yes David has ambition, but what MP doesn’t? Ambition is not a bad thing, if there is talent to back it up, and Cunliffe has that.

On balance I think Shearer has a greater chance of leading Labour to victory, for reasons I have written about previously. But I will say that Shearer is a somewhat risker option. There is greater potential to wins over the hearts and minds of New Zealanders and get Labour’s party vote back into the mid 30s or highers. But there is also a greater risk that Shearer just can’t hack it, and Labour stays weak or gets weaker.

However Labour has dire problems being in the mid 20s. If Labour had got say 30%+, then you might go for the safer option of Cunliffe to lift you that few per cent more. But to win enough party vote to form Government in 2014 from 27% in 2011, you need to take some risks. Otherwise the best you can hope for is a Labour/Green/Maori/Mana Government propped up by NZ First. Sure that will get you into Government, but it won’t be a very good one.

As I have said previously, both contenders should do better for Labour than Phil Goff. Labour are fortunate to have a healthy and competitive choice between two good options rather than choosing the least worst candidate.

I love it how much more reasonable we all get (including me) after an election. Yesterday John Pagani was saying some of what ACT asked for in welfare reform is okay stuff, and today Rob Salmond blogs on charter schools:

We should be asking what makes successful charter schools successful, not declaring all charter schools a failure on the basis that some charter schools failed. More on that later. …

People who are about progressive educational outcomes should ask hard questions about the government’s proposal. Where will the schools be placed? How will the schools select their students? How many will there be? The answers to those kinds of questions will determine how supportive I am.

What we should not be doing is writing off charter schools en masse. There is evidence that charter schools, done right, are progressive institutions. Our challenge is to make sure the government does them right.

Worth reading Rob’s entire post on the issue.

All the groups which campaigned against national standards are against charter schools which would be exempt from national standards.

I’d forgotten that Mickey Savage  doesn’t just comment here and his own own blog. But someone pointed out this post on Monday 28th Nov where he says:

A third mooted candidate, David Shearer, is extremely unlikely to even stand, despite media speculation to the contrary.

Hmmn. And further.

David Shearer has also been mentioned as a possible leader.  He is a decent talented person who will contribute significantly to the party in the future but he is not leadership material at this stage.

The rumours about Shearer and Little were originally started by David Farrar and have been continuously mentioned by Cameron Slater.  The media should discount anything Farrar or Slater says about the Labour Party.

Of course the following day David Shearer announced his candidacy for leader, and is now considered the front runner.

But here is what is hilarious. Mickey Savage is in fact the Auckland Regional Chairman for the Labour Party. So myself and Whale were far more accurate, perceptive and informed on the issue of the Labour Party leadership than Labour’s own regional chairman where the two leadership candidates come from!!

That has to hurt.

John Pagani blogs:

The sections National has agreed to are not especially obnoxious. The sections are mainly about intervention to have someone else manage household budgets or use a payment card when childrens’ needs are not being met.

This isn’t entitlement reform. It isn’t slashing benefits. In order to disagree with them you have to construct an argument about entitlement to a living wage, and somehow also say that parents should be paid by the state to parent even when they’re not doing their job as parent. The consequence of failure is more help rather than punishment….

It’s interesting that National has allowed them to be branded as Act gains, which will provoke an automatic assumption that the gains are hopelessly right wing. But they will be highly popular if the public research into voter attitudes to welfare holds.

The latest prices on iPredict for the Labour leadership and the next PM continue to intrigue.

David Shearer is at 70.4% to become the Labour leader. The stock on whether the PM after the 2014 election will be Labour is 52%, so if you multiply them together the chance Shearer will become PM should be 36.6%. However the price for Shearer to become PM is 29.6c or 29.6% which suggests that the market thinks Shearer becoming leader is a negative for Labour winning in 2014 by 7.0%.

But Cunliffe has the same issue. His leader stock is 28.2% suggesting his PM stock should be 14.7%. But in fact it is 7.4%, which suggests that Cunliffe as leader damages Labour chances by 7.3% – much the same as for Shearer.

So how is this possible? Well the answer is that despite not being a candidate for this leadership ballot, Grant Robertson is at 5.7% to be PM after the election. As the price for a Labour victory is 52% this suggests that the market thinks there is an 11% chance Grant will roll whomever gets elected Leader before the 2014 election.

The teacher unions insisted national standards should be trialled before implementation, yet are furiously against charter schools being trialled.

Are they worried the trial might be a raging success?

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

THE SELL-OFF DEBATE CONTINUES: The election may be over but the debate over asset sales continues. Does National have a mandate for asset sales? Will their coalition partners United Future, ACT and possibly the Maori parties be a great influence on what is sold? Will the opposition hold much sway? What protections will be in place to make sure the majority stake in the assets stay in Kiwi hands?

A TIME FOR GIVING: Tis’ the season for giving. But are we only opening our wallets for more crap we don’t need or are we helping our fellow man? Are we a charitable nation? Are our corporations giving? What about the common man? Are we generous? Should we be encouraging one another to give either with time or money? Is it time to offer tax credits to encourage us to give?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 7th of December. Our Panel: Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty, Labour MP Andrew Little, National MP David Bennett.

Back Benches screens on TVNZ 7 every Wednesday at 9.05pm with encore screenings on Thursdays at 9.05am and 1.05pm, Saturdays at 10.05pm, Sundays at 10.05am and 2.05pm.

If all the lefties had not tactically voted NZ First to get them over 5%, then National would have 63 seats and not need ACT and United Future to govern, and hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools. When the main party *needs* you, you will get far more wins than when they simply *want* you.

I love own goals. It is almost as good an own goal as Labour winning Te Tai Tonga, which has allowed asset sales to proceed.

Stuff reports:

The possibility of further strikes at Ports of Auckland has forced major shipping line Maersk to shift one of its services to the Port of Tauranga, leaving the Auckland port company $20 million out of pocket.

And:

”Maersk have explained to us that the possibility of further industrial unrest has been central to their decision to shift the service to Tauranga.”

The port company will lose 52 ship calls, 82,500 containers, and nearly $20m in revenue annually.

I guess that may mean fewer jobs. Funny how the real world operates.

A group of supporters have set up a “We want David Cunliffe” website, giving reasons why Labour should make Cunliffe leader, and allowing people to e-mail their support to all 34 Labour MPs.

The site is a good concept in principle. I think it is good to see supporters of one of the contenders set up a support site. The more engaged supporters and activists get the better.

I was amused that they concluded by saying:

Don’t let the right-wing bloggers hijack your party’s Leadership election. Submit the form now!

So many people have got worked up that some of us have offered an opinion. I also had an opinion on the Green co-leadership contest between Bradford and Turei and it wasn’t such a big thing. I’ll probably offer my opinion on all leadership contests in all parties, except probably National where diplomacy would win out. Anyway back to this site.

While the site is a good thing in principle, three criticisms:

1. The design is awful. Looks like an excited eight year old did it.
2. The supporters are anonymous. This is a major fail. Who the hell sets up a support site and is not prepared to stick their name to it? It turns the site into an issue about who is really behind it – it could be Trevor Mallard for all we know
3. They have provided incorrect registration details to the .nz registry. They have done this to hide their identity, but the rules for .nz require a registrant to be named and contactable. Their domain name registration could be found to be invalid.

The substance of the site is pretty good though – it pushes his strong points well. Maybe we will see a site for Shearer also?

UPDATE: A reader points out a reason why the authors may be anonymous. They stated:

David Cunliffe wins elections. On Saturday David was almost the only Labour MP to increase his local majority. Labour will only be relevant when it can win enough votes to form the government. Cunliffe comes from a new progressive generation. We think he¹s the best candidate to beat John Key.

But DC was not the only Labour MP to increase his majority. Based on results to date the Labour MPs who increased majorities are:

1. Su’a William Sio +6,230
2. Nanaia Mahuta +4,485
3. Parekura Horomia +3,258
4. Grant Robertson +3,207
5. Chris Hipkins +2,373
6. Iain Lees-Galloway +1,884
7. Ross Robertson +1,405
8. David Cunliffe +450
9. Trevor Mallard +107

Such a basic mistake makes me wonder about who is behind it. Maybe it is actually the Young Nats having fun?

In my blog at Stuff, I make the case for David – in fact for both Davids, weighing up their respective strengths.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key is defending the introduction of charter schools under a deal with ACT despite National never campaigning on it, saying “that’s MMP for you, isn’t it?”.

It is. And I see one of the registered promoters for the referendum was the NZEI arguing we should retain MMP.

Under the deal with ACT, community, religious or ethnic groups, or private companies, will be allowed to operate state-funded charter schools.

School boards will be able to set class hours and introduce performance-related teacher’s pay.

A trial will be held in South Auckland which, along with Christchurch East, will be the first areas to have the state-funded private schools within the next three years.

I’m pleased to see the trial will be in South Auckland, where young kids are not doing that well under the current system.

The prime minister rejected suggestions National had blindsided voters with changes to the education system.

“Are you really telling me that because we might trial in parts of the country, one or two schools, to see whether they can deliver better results, that somehow it’s undermining the education system in New Zealand?

“Sorry but it sounds a bit far-fetched to me.”

Oh it could well undermine the current education system – by succeeding. This is the worse nightmare of the opponents. Think if a charter school that has flexibility over staff, property and operational budgets (including ability to do performance pay) actually delivers better results than the existing schools? Think if instead of white flight, we get brown flight – Maori and PI families enrolling in the charter school because their kids get a better educational outcome there.

One prediction I will make. Regardless of how successful a charter school may prove to be, Labour will promise to close it down, or force it to become like all the other schools when the Ministry of Education and the NZEI/PPTA decides how much teachers get paid rather than the school and the teacher decide.

“I don’t think the New Zealand voters are going to be up and arms because in a couple of communities in New Zealand we give some new model a go.

“If those students don’t want to go there, they’ll be free to go to the existing schools they are at.”

Exactly. Of course some people think choice is an evil word.

UPDATE: Danyl at Dim Post thinks that charter schools are a scam and only do better because they can pick their students. However Eric Crampton at Offsetting Behaviour quotes from a study where students were selected by lottery:

Charter schools are publicly funded but operate outside the regulatory framework and collective bargaining agreements characteristic of traditional public schools. In return for this freedom, charter schools are subject to heightened accountability. This paper estimates the impact of charter school attendance on student achievement using data from Boston, where charter schools enroll a growing share of students. We also evaluate an alternative to the charter model, Boston’s pilot schools. These schools have some of the independence of charter schools, but operate within the school district, face little risk of closure, and are covered by many of same collective bargaining provisions as traditional public schools. Estimates using student assignment lotteries show large and significant test score gains for charter lottery winners in middle and high school.

This is highly exciting.