Some interesting data from Stats NZ on Maori culture and language.

• 46% of Maori say engagement in Maori culture is quite or very important to them
• 49% say spirituality is quite or very important to them, ranging from 38% for under 25s to 62% for over 55s
• 29% say religion important
• 89% say tribal identity important
• 58% have been to a marae in last year
• 75% watched a Maori TV programme and 34% a Maori radio station
• 15% have a moko
• 11% can speak Te reo well and and only 2.6% say it is their main language at home
• 34% say things are getting better for their whanau and only 12% worse
• 83% say their whanau are well off and just 6% not well off
• 95% say whanau includes parents, children, partner and siblings
• 41% say also includes aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, in-laws

Pleasing to see most whanau are so well off, and many improving. Also interesting how tribal identity most important, then spirituality and culture followed by religion.

The Herald reports:

Kim Dotcom is offering to pay the salaries of his Internet Party candidates in the run-up to the election. …

And in some Tweets posted this morning, the Megaupload founder revealed that his candidates will “earn the salary of an MP immediately”.

Every other political party runs on its volunteers. People get involved because they believe in the party. Those who are candidates stand (at considerable expense to them) because they believe in the party.

This will be a first. It seems every single person involved in the Internet Party is being paid to be involved. Candidates will be effectively personally paid by Kim Dotcom. That means they must of course do whatever he says.

This is not a genuine political party. It is a wholly owned company.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Airport says it would like to have a fixed taxi fare price for the journey into the city to stop some drivers charging exorbitant fares – but it can’t take any action until current contracts expire in 2016.

I’m not sure that is a great idea. There’s nothing stopping a taxi company offering a fixed fare. Plus you have buses and shuttles which have fixed fares.

What I would like to see is a website that shows all the taxi firms in a city and what each one charges. Then one can know in advance which firms are the cheapest.

I always use Combined Taxis as their drivers speak English, don’t get lost, have decent cars, don’t stink of food, take Taxicharge and I know their tariffs. Very rarely have had a bad experience with them.

For visitors arriving from overseas, I can see the appeal of a fixed fare, as they may not know which firms are good to choose. But I’m not sure there is a huge variation in tariffs per km. I think the problem is that sometimes you get a driver who doesn’t take the shortest route – but that is actually an offence.

UPDATE: A reader points out that David Cunliffe promised in his leadership campaign higher wages for taxi drivers, so I guess that will push the prices right up.

The HLFS is out. Somewhat annoyingly, the unemployment rate has remained at 6% – but this is due to more people entering the labour force. Key stats:

• Employment up 25,000 for the quarter and now 83,000 higher than a year ago
• The job growth is full-time not part-time. 30,000 new full-time jobs
• Unemployed remain at 147,000 and 6.0% rate
• Our unemployment rate is 11th best in OECD, compared to 12th last quarter (out of 34)
• Those not in labour force down 20,000
• Labour force participation rate is 69.3% up from 67.9% a year ago
• The number of hours worked increased in the quarter by 2.7%

Also the average ordinary time earnings are 2.5% up from a year ago.

Stuff reports:

NZ First MP Tracey Martin was paid more than $70,000 as a local council board member – on top of her almost $150,000-a-year MP’s salary.

That’s a rather misleading sentence. The $70,000 is her board salary over two years. The way this is written makes it look like Martin is getting $70,000 a year on top of $150,000.

Down the bottom they say:

A council spokesman confirmed Martin was paid between 2011 and 2013. The annual salary was between $34,000 and $35,000.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think Martin should have retired from the board once she became an MP, but she retired in 2013 from it, so this is all historic anyway.

My point is just that the way the story was written (and this may be due to sub-editing) is rather misleading. A better sentence would have been:

NZ First MP Tracey Martin was paid more an extra $35,000 a year as a local council board member from 2011 to 2013 – on top of her almost $150,000-a-year MP’s salary.

For Labour to gain traction with their Oravida claims, they essentially have to prove two things, and connect them up. They need to show that Oravida has had some sort of preferential treatment compared to other milk exporters, and that this is due to the involvement of Government Ministers.

I thought yesterday that they may have established the first. Grant Robertson claimed:

There is further evidence Judith Collins’ assistance of Oravida resulted in her husband’s company getting its milk into China, Labour MP Grant Robertson says.

“Documents show that Oravida had its milk shipment accepted by Chinese border control in December, while milk from the same supplier exported by a different company was rejected.

“Oravida’s fresh milk supplier Green Valley Dairies also supplies the same two litre bottles to Guangzhou Ruima Food Limited, simply with a different label.

“However, Guangzhou Ruima Food’s fresh milk shipment in December was rejected by China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ).

I found this significant, as if true would suggest preferential treatment. But alas I made the mistake of thinking Labour actually were telling the truth.

Pete George has blogged a transcript from Radio NZ:

Green Valley’s general manager Corrie Den Haring refutes what Labour says.

Corrie Den Haring: It is not the same two litre bottles just simply with a different label. First of all Ruimi Food’s was taking what’s called enriched milk. They were taking flavoured milk, particularly strawberry and chocolate milks as well as standard white milk in various bottled formats.

Oravida at that stage were simply taking two litre milk with their label on it.

Some products going to Ruimi Foods in Guangzhou were blocked, and that was through extra testing that was done, namely the strawberryv chocolate and calcium milks that actually took longer than the shelf life of the product.

Mary Wilson: The milk shipment that was rejected was rejected because the testing process took so long that milk was off by the time it got through the process.

Corrie Den Haring: That’s correct, so that the shelf life of the milk only effectively has ten days once it’s in China. Some of these testing took I think up to eight days and if any product has less than I think thirty percent or fifty percent of it’s available shelf life then it’s rejected at border, and that is recorded by the Chinese border inspectorate as being a failure.

Mary Wilson: Why wasn’t Oravida’s milk then subject to the same testing over the same time frame?

Corrie Den Haring: Because they were testing for different, partly for different issues, so in and around the flavoured milks there was a question mark around some of the flavourings and some of the potential colourings, whether they actually met a fresh milk specification, and also in the calcium they were checking the levels of calcium within the milk which obviously take a lot longer time period than the standard testing being carried out.

Mary Wilson: But some of that testing surely should have applied to Oravida’s milk?

Corrie Den Haring: They weren’t taking any of the flavoured milks or any of the calcium milks, they were taking the standard fresh milk which simply have a micro-biological testing programme attached to them.

Mary Wilson: So you’re saying this is merely a technical issue, it has got nothing to do with favouritism?

Corrie Den Haring:I’m not aware of any favouritism and I don’t see any evidence from the position that Green Valley has in supplying product that the same level of orders were coming through, the same demand was coming through.

The same level of, one could argue,  frustration in and around some of the testing regimes that were being implemented at that stage, and we saw no difference between the two businesses.

So it is not the same milk, with just a different label.

Labour over-hyped the House yesterday. They went around boasting before question time how awesome they were going to be, and destroy the Government. They should remember the old maxim about setting expectations. The result was yesterday proved to be a bit of a fizzer.

Stuff reports:

Labour is still refusing to put a figure on the probable impact of its plan to let the Reserve Bank lift KiwiSaver contributions to fight inflation.

There’s only two possible explanations for this.

1. They have no idea what the impact will be, and didn’t bother to calculate it in developing their policy.
2. They do know what the impact will be, but don’t want anyone to know.

I’m not sure which explanation is worse.

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce has put the figure at $400 million against a $2.5 billion impact from a rise of 1 per cent in the official cash rate, the central bank’s other inflation-fighting tool.

Labour finance spokesman David Parker said Joyce’s $400m figure was wrong, but he was “not going to play his narrow little game” by releasing what Labour thought the impact would be.

It’s not a game. It’s called credibility. If Labour wants people to think that a VSR will mean lower interest rates, then they need to say what they believe the impact will be.

He said the variable savings rate (VSR) was just one of the mix of policies Labour would introduce.

That’s irrelevant. One can debate the impact of the other policies also. But this is the policy that they have said will mean lower interest rates. Why are they unwilling to give us their calculation of what the impact would be?

Stuff reports:

Sharia police in the Indonesian province of Aceh will publicly flog a young woman for adultery after she was turned in by eight vigilantes who had already gang-raped her as punishment.

The woman, a 25-year-old widow, and her alleged partner, a married 40-year old man, were caught inside her home last Thursday by a group of eight who were intent on enforcing the sharia prohibition on sex outside marriage, local media reports say.

The eight, who included a 13-year-old boy, tied up and beat the man and repeatedly raped the woman before dousing both in raw sewage.

They then marched the couple to the office of the local sharia police.

Hard to get a better example of why sharia law is evil.

Religions and states should not be mixed up, with the state having the power to enforce religious dictates. This is what happens when you do.

As always, it is important to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. There’s nothing wrong with a religion where people choose to join it, and voluntarily follow its teachings.

But there’s a lot wrong with Islamism, which is a political ideology based on implementing certain interpretations of Islamic practice into law.

It is my view that Islamism (not Islam) is as incompatible with having free democratic states as communism and fascism are. They are have an ideology where the state is all powerful.

The 2013/14 register has just been published. Some of the interesting ones:

• One of the gifts to John Banks was a legal opinion!
• David Cunliffe has not revealed the names of the two other donors to the TR Trust that funded his leadership campaign
• Paul Foster-Bell has shares in Mighty River Power (presumably before he was an MP)
• John Key’s most common gift was golf green fees.  Also the SAS gave him a framed print.
• Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard had donations from Labour MPs for their legal fees
• Ian McKelvie is the Chairman of Special Olympics NZ
• Louisa Wall got tickets to the Rugby Sevens
• Craig Foss got given a statue of Azog the Defiler

3 News reported last night:

3 News can reveal details about a fundraising network used by the National Party to get donations in exchange for access to MPs and ministers.

The Green Party is calling it a secret racket, but because the donations are declared there are no rules broken.

The first rule of Cabinet Club is you do not talk about Cabinet Club. Four National MPs 3 News spoke with said they were not sure what it was.

It’s been many years since I was involved in the party organisation, but to the best of my knowledge there is no central organisation called Cabinet Club. It is a generic term that some use (including me) to refer to electorate level fundraisers where you pay an annual fee for a series of breakfast or lunch meetings with MPs.

Each electorate that has one, designs it themselves. Some may do a monthly breakfast with an MP or Minister speaking. Some may do occassional lunches or dinners. I’m not sure how many, if any, are called Cabinet Clubs. It’s a term that is used internally a bit as a generic term, but I’m not sure how many electorates, if any, use that term.

This is not some new secret fundraiser. Such “clubs” (it’s not a club – it an annual payment for a series of functions) have been absolutely common since at least the 1990s, if not the 1980s. And yes both major parties have electorates that use them.

Supporters pay a fee or donation to the party to attend three or four “informal luncheon/breakfast get-togethers”. They get access to ministers who attend, though the party claims “not in a ministerial capacity”.

It’s not access to ministers. It’s attending a function where they speak and do Q+A. Just like Ministers and MPs do around the country for rotary clubs, chambers of commerce and the like.

We have incredibly accessible Ministers. Most Ministers are doing public functions a couple of times a week. Almost anyone can meet an Minister in their electorate office, if they have one. If you ask to meet a Minister on a portfolio matter, most will make time to meet you. And community organisations and Ministers invite Ministers and MPs all the time to speak to them, meet them etc.

I note no other media seemed to have treated this as a story, as it is basically a non-story. The main people excited by it are Green Party supporters as they don’t want parties to be funded by private donations. They want to pass a law forcing taxpayers to directly fund political parties – which of course entrenches the established parties.

UPDATE: If you want a casr though of selling direct access, I blogged last year on how Labour was selling one on one meetings with its MPs for $1,500. Maybe an inquiring journalist could ask Russel Norman what he thinks of that. National sells tickets to breakfasts and lunches. Labour sells one on one meetings.

The Herald reports:

Labour is considering blocking former TVNZ broadcaster Shane Taurima as a candidate if a TVNZ investigation into his links with the party while working at the state broadcaster is too damaging for him and the party.

I doubt they will. They seem desperate to do whatever they can to allow him to stand. But there is a risk for them, as his selection may be seen as a de facto endorsement of his actions while at TVNZ.

However, some on the council are concerned his resignation from TVNZ in March has made him too much of a political risk in the seat Labour hopes to win back from the Maori Party. Taurima is yet to comment publicly on the nomination. If he was blocked, it could clear the way for Maori TV broadcaster Julian Wilcox to run.

Labour sources told the Herald Wilcox had talked to the party, but because of the risk to his career he had refused to stand unless Taurima withdrew and Wilcox was a certainty to win it.

Wilcox would also require the waiver – sources said he joined the party last November but stopped his membership four months later after Taurima ran into trouble.

So we have confirmed that Wilcox is or was a paid up Labour Party member and wants to stand for Labour as an MP. Now I’m a big fan of his work on Native Affairs, but it does create a real conflict for Maori TV – that their head of news and current affairs is or was a Labour Party member who wishes to be a Labour Party MP.

David Cunliffe announced:

“I am pleased to announce that Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford will join the front bench and pick up the transport portfolio. It shows the importance Labour places on affordable housing for all New Zealanders.

That’s a sensible appointment. Twyford has been a solid performer for them, and transport is a good portfolio for him.

“Grant Robertson has the Economic Development portfolio. Grant is a senior member of Caucus and will take on one of the most crucial roles of the campaign of jobs and economic growth.

Grants knows a lot about economic growth. He’s read lots of textbooks on the private sector.

“Grant will be supported by Trevor Mallard who moves to the second bench and takes on Associate Economic Development as well as Immigration.

Having failed to get Trevor to quit, this is a belated attempt to get him back in the tent pissing out, rather than vice-versa. Hopefully as Immigration spokesperson he’ll steer Labour away from their recent flirtation with anti-immigration policies to steal votes back off Winston.

“Nanaia Mahuta will take on Māori Affairs and move up one place. She will lead the Māori Caucus and oversee the job of winning the Māori seats back for Labour.

No real choice there.

“Jacinda Ardern also moves up one to five.

“Other big movers are Andrew Little, who has done the heavy lifting in the Justice and Labour portfolios, and returning MP Kelvin Davis who comes in at number 22 and takes on associate roles in Regional Development, Education, Corrections and Police.

A promotion for Little is deserved and sensible portfolios for Davis.

“Labour is refreshed, united and ready to fight this election,” David Cunliffe says.

No one believes they are united, any more than we believe we have always been at war with Eastasia. But the reshuffle is a sensible one, which will help them move forward.

On Stuff they report:

Cunliffe said the top 10 would now meet as a group replacing the former caucus strategy committee, which was the top five.

Not sure that is a sensible move. Having almost a third of your caucus in the strategy group is pretty unwieldy. Few groups that have more than single figure membership are particularly effective at nimble decision making.

Stuff reports:

Embattled justice minister Judith Collins is abandoning Twitter, and Prime Minister John Key says he backs her decision because it’s full of “trolls and bottom feeders”.

Key said he had not given Collins an edict to stay off social media and it was her idea to remove herself from the twittersphere.

“She’s volunteered. She’s said to me I’m going to stay off,” Key said.

“My view is there’s a lot of trolls and bottom feeders on that and in the end they get in people’s head. It’s an anonymous situation it’s a form of cyber bullying, I don’t engage in that.”

I think that is an unduly negative view of Twitter.

Yes there are trolls out there. Lots of them. But you don’t have to respond to them, and/or you can always block them.

There are also lots of journalists, commentators, and political activists out there who are worth engaging with.

While there is a balance to be achieved, I think it is good for MPs to use Twitter to engage, not just broadcast. Steven Joyce does that for example, as does Russel Norman.

And for what its worth, I think generally Judith’s engagement on Twitter has been productive, useful and amusing. Obviously excluding the Katie Bradford tweet.

Abandoning Twitter to Labour and Green MPs is not a great social media strategy – for my 2c.

John Key has announced:

So today I am pleased to announce a new initiative to further support the rebuild and at the same time help job-seeking beneficiaries outside the region gain work.

It’s called ‘$3k to Christchurch’, and it has two parts.

The first part is Work and Income actively promoting through advertising and direct marketing, job opportunities in Christchurch and surrounding districts to beneficiaries outside the region.

This will involve staff discussing with beneficiaries if moving is an option, and looking at whether their skills and a job in Canterbury can be matched up.

The second part is providing a lump-sum, one-off $3000 payment to beneficiaries interested in moving to Christchurch or surrounding districts who gain a confirmed job offer.

To be eligible, a beneficiary would need proof of a confirmed full-time job offer of at least 30 hours a week and for more than 91 days.

Sounds a good initiative.  Getting people into work is excellent.

• Beneficiaries will not be required to provide proof of costs.
• The money will be paid in one lump sum, and it will be non-taxable and exempt from any income and asset tests.
• In most circumstances the payment would be non-recoverable, but situations where it may have to be repaid would be for cases like misconduct leading to dismissal.
• The offer will be open to all ages who are on benefits, but with a particular focus on those aged 18 to 24.

Non-taxable makes it more attractive.

Also announced:

The apprenticeship reboot I announced in January last year was so successful that by October, 8000 people throughout the country had signed up for training in apprenticeship programmes. 

That happened in the space of just seven months – when the normal sign-up rate for a full year was 7000.

Because of this demand, in December last year we expanded the reboot to a total of 14,000 places.  And they too have been filling up quickly.

Today, I am pleased to announce that the scheme will be expanded again because of continuing high demand.

Budget 2014 will provide up to $20 million to expand the Apprenticeship Reboot by 6000 places.

This move will boost the total number of places to 20,000.

This extension means we have doubled the number of apprentices that can get their training costs subsidised since the scheme was first announced.

Both are about helping young people get into work. The first job is often the most important one.

The Herald reports:

The review into Len Brown’s extramarital affair with council adviser Bevan Chuang uncovered a large number of telephone calls and text messages the Auckland mayor made to five unidentified numbers.

Last night, Mr Brown declined to identify the numbers, saying the information was not held by him and details of his phone calls were private to him.

Except ratepayers paid for them.

Papers released under the Official Information Act show that of the 25 telephone numbers with the highest frequency of calls and text messages from Mr Brown, six could not be attributed by the council to a person or company. …

The council paid $4538.50 for the mayor’s mobile phone calls and texts over the three-year period.

Thank you very much for your kind donations …

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM-3.00PM.

1. CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Finance: How will the Budget next week help to lock in the benefits of sustainable economic growth to support more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?

2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Has Hon Judith Collins failed to meet the “high standards” he expects from Ministers; if so, how?

4. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent reports has he received on New Zealand’s export performance?

5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements regarding her relationships and interactions with Oravida Ltd?

6. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about the Government’s support for budgeting services?

7. JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement “we need to encourage these women and children to be comfortable coming forward to report domestic and sexual violence”; if so, what has she done to encourage women to report domestic violence?

8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Justice: Why does she stand by all her statements regarding Oravida Ltd?

9. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding the restoration of the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes?

10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “we’ve done a lot of work to rebalance our economy towards exports, savings and investment in a bid to lift sustainable economic growth”; if so, what is the current level of household savings in New Zealand?

11. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Education: Ka tuku pūrongo Te Tari Arotake Mātauranga mō ōna hiahia i ngā kaiako mō ā rātou tauira, ā mēnā āē, he aha ngā huarahi kei a rātou ki te whakautu i tā Hana Turner kōrero e mea ane “very negative opinions about their Māori students”?

Translation: Does the Education Review Office report on teacher expectations of students; if so, what mechanisms do they have in place to address what Hana Turner has described as teachers having “very negative opinions about their Māori students”?

12. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with the role she has played as Minister of Police in the events that led up to Hon Maurice Williamson’s resignation last week?

Today Labour are asking two questions about Oravida, one about the level of household savings in New Zealand, and the resignation of Maurice Williamson. The Greens are asking whether the Prime Minister has confidence in all his ministers, and what the government is doing about domestic and sexual violence. New Zealand First is asking about Oravida.

Patsy of the day goes to Louise Upston for Question 9:  What recent announcements has the Government made regarding the restoration of the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes?

Government Bills 3.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill – Committee Stage

2. Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill – Committee Stage

3. Vulnerable Children Bill – Committee Stage

4. Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill – Committee Stage

The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for the Arts, Chris Finlayson QC. This bill replaces the Historic Places Act 1993, which established the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga), to rename the Trust as Heritage New Zealand and reform its governance and structure.

The Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill is being guided by the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. This bill proposes amendments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 and the repeal of the Credit (Repossession) Act 1997. The objects of the bill are the reform of the legislation governing consumer credit contracts.

The Vulnerable Children Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Social Development, Paula Bennett. This is an omnibus bill that proposes establishing the Vulnerable Children Act and the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children.

The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is being through the house by the the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill would establish a mechanism for a victim of a violent offence to obtain a non-contact order against an offender sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn said:

Meanwhile its worth noting that our MPs enjoy no such protection from the SIS (and hence from GCSB). If John Key wants SIS to spy on his political opponents, all he has to do is sign a warrant. 

That’s a pretty outrageous fib.

Here’s all the people who would have to be involved in breaking the law in such a way (a warrant to spy on MPs would only be legal if they were taking part in activities prejudicial to security. Section 4AA specifically outlaws the SIS taking any action to further or harm the interests of any political party. So be very clear a warrant to spy on MPs would be illegal. So who would have to be involved in this illegal activity:

1. The SIS Director who must apply for the warrant. The PM can’t just make up his own warrants. The SIS Director is Rebecca Kitteridge – the former Cabinet Secretary – about as neutral an official as you can get,
2. The Commissioner of Security Warrants who must also authorise the warrant. That is former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Bruce Robertson. He was appointed to the judiciary in 1987 by Labour, and his appointment as CSR in 2013 was agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition.
3. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security who would be notified of the warrant. That is Cheryl Gwnn, former Deputy Solicitor-General. She was appointed after consultation with the Intelligence and Security Committee. She was appointed Deputy Solictor-General in 2003.
4. The half dozen or so SIS staff who would be involved in implementing the warrant.

So the statement that the PM can spy on his political opponents by just signing a warrant, is outrageously false. Idiot/Savant does many good insightful blog posts (even if I disagree with them). But sometimes he just gets hysterical.

Stuff reports:

A Government initiative will offer interest-free and low-interest loans to low-income borrowers banks don’t normally lend to.

BNZ announced today it would commit $10 million to a community finance initiative in partnership with the Government, Good Shepherd NZ and The Salvation Army.

BNZ spokesperson Michelle van Gaalen said the programme, to start with a one-year pilot, was designed to help people become self-sufficient and get away from using payday lenders and loan sharks.

“BNZ wants to help all New Zealanders be good with money, including those who currently don’t have access to conventional sources of credit,” van Gaalen said.

“Traditionally banks haven’t provided loans to customers with minimal income, so those people have been using the only other option they feel they have – borrowing at extortionate rates.”

Loan sharks and payday lenders charge crippling levels of interest. Smart Cash charges 365% interest and they’re one of the cheaper ones. Ferratum goes up to 800% interest. Can’t Wait is 521%.

Greg Mankiw writes in the NY Times:

Consumers of the news, both from television and print, sometimes feel that they are getting not just the facts but also a sizable dose of ideological spin. Yet have you ever wondered about the root cause of the varying political slants of different media outlets?

That is precisely the question that a young economist, Mathew Gentzkow, has been asking. A professor at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, Mr. Gentzkow was recently awarded the John Bates Clark Medal by the American Economic Association for the best economist under the age of 40. 

And what did he find?

Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro went to the Congressional Record and used a computer algorithm to find phrases that were particularly associated with the rhetoric of politicians of the two major political parties. They found that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to use phrases like “minimum wage,” “oil and gas companies” and “wildlife refuge.” Republicans more often referred to “tax relief,” “private property rights” and “economic growth.” While Democrats were more likely to mention Rosa Parks, Republicans were more likely to mention the Grand Ole Opry.

With specific phrases associated with political stands, the researchers then analyzed newspaper articles from 2005 to determine which papers leaned left and which leaned right. (They looked only at news articles and excluded opinion columns.) That is, they computed an objective, if imperfect, measure of political slant based on the choice of language.

A nice way to do it. Wonder if that could be done here?

With a measure of political slant in hand, the researchers then analyzed its determinants. That is, they examined why some papers write in a way that is more consistent with liberal rhetoric while others are more conservative.

A natural hypothesis is that a media outlet’s perspective reflects the ideology of its owner. Indeed, much regulatory policy is premised on precisely this view. Policy makers sometimes take a jaundiced view of media consolidation on the grounds that high levels of cross-ownership reduce the range of political perspectives available to consumers.

From their study of newspapers, however, Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro, find little evidence to support this hypothesis. After accounting for confounding factors like geographic proximity, they find that two newspapers with the same owner are no more likely to be ideologically similar than two random papers. Moreover, they find no correlation between the political slant of a paper and the owner’s ideology, as judged by political donations.

Fascinating, and reassuring. So when people go on about ownership, there is no data to back up that an owner’s ideology slants most newspapers’ coverage.

So, if not the owner’s politics, what determines whether a newspaper leans left or right? To answer this question, Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro focus on regional papers, ignoring the few with national scope, like The Times. They find that potential customers are crucial.

If a paper serves a liberal community, it is likely to lean left, and if it serves a conservative community, it is likely to lean right. In addition, once its political slant is set, a paper is more likely to be read by households who share its perspective.

So it is about meeting market demand. That’s one reason Fox News has done so well. For decades there was no TV broadcast presence that didn’t lean left.

Religiosity also plays a role in the story, and it helps Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro sort out cause and effect. They find that in regions where a high percentage of the population attends church regularly, there are more conservatives, and newspapers have a conservative slant. They argue that because newspapers probably don’t influence how religious a community is, the best explanation is that causation runs from the community’s politics to the newspaper’s slant, rather than the other way around.

The bottom line is simple: Media owners generally do not try to mold the population to their own brand of politics. Instead, like other business owners, they maximize profit by giving customers what they want.

Makes sense.

Stuff reports:

More than 50 per cent of crime was committed by people under the influence of drugs and two-thirds of prisoners had substance abuse problems, the Corrections Service national commissioner Jeremy Lightfoot said.

Because of that, addressing alcohol and other drug abuse among offenders significantly contributed towards the department’s goal to reduce reoffending by 25 per cent in the next three years, he said.

“We are now over half way to achieving this target and re-offending has fallen by over 12 per cent against the June 2011 benchmark.

As a result, there were 2319 fewer offenders and 9276 fewer victims of crime each year.

All positive.

In 2009 nearly $2.7m was spent on drug treatment in New Zealand prisons.

By last year that had increased to $5.3m.

All prisons had recently introduced treatment programmes, he said.

“All prisoners are now screened for alcohol and drug problems when they enter prison which allows staff to make appropriate decisions on the amount of support required.

“This means that every prisoner now undergoes screening for addictions, health, mental health and education when they enter a corrections facility.”

Should have happened a long time ago.

In the 2013-14 financial year more than 3700 prisoners will have access to treatment for their addictions rising to 4700 next year.

That leapt from just 234 in 2007-08.

Labour talked the talk when it came to rehabilitation, but never walked the walk.

Stats NZ has the latest marriage stats. Key data:

• 19,237 resident marriages – lowest level since at least 1978
• Marriage rate per 1,000 non married adults is 10.85. Was 15.49 in 2000, 22.19 in 1990, 29.35 in 1980 – so one third of 1980.
• Median age for marriage is 32.4 for men and 30.4 for women. Fir first time marrieds 30.1 for men and 28.6 for women.
• Divorces also down – 8,279 which is lowest since 1980. Divorce rate per 1,000 is 9.4
• Marriages are lasting longer – median duration of marriage that divorces is 14.2 years. Was 13.1 in 2000.
• 233 civil unions, down from 390 the year before. 74 are opposite sex and 159 same sex.
• Of 19,237 resident marriages, 19,028 are opposite sex and 209 same sex.
• Of 2,416 non-resident marriages 2,270 are opposite sex and 146 same sex