This is a graph of our annual exports to China. The growth in exports since we signed a free trade agreement with them has been almost beyond belief.

In the last six years we have exported $33.7 billion of goods to China. In the six years before that, it was $9.9 billion.

Remember those facts as you also recall that NZ First and the Greens railed against the China FTA, and voted against it.

I hope Labour are proud of the China FTA. They should be. May the protectionists in their party and the affiliated unions not gain dominance.

Stats NZ has some survey data on why people did not vote in 2008 and 2011. Major reasons are:

• Disengaged 43% (+4%)
• Perceived barrier 30% (nc)
• Not registered 12% (+1%)

The proportions who did not vote are:

• 21% of men and 19% of women
• 42% of under 25s and 5% of over 65s
• 17% of Europeans and 27% of Maori
• 59% of recent migrants
• 23% of those earning under $30,000

The Herald reports:

The Green Party believes the rules could be amended further. It wants an inquiry to investigate state funding for election campaigns.

A spokeswoman said: “We see partial public funding of parties as a further step to help level the playing field between parties and to help combat parties being captured by wealthy interests.”

That would be a terrible thing. Any significant donations must be disclosed so people can then make informed decisions on consent. The Greens just want taxpayers to fund their own party, rather than be reliant on members and supporters. Then they’ll use that to limit how much money supporters can donate.

One tricky question this week. Quiz here.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

When David Cunliffe tried to hit home the message that many Kiwis were struggling this week, he chose a simple, heartbreaking example.

Not only was one in four living below the poverty line ‘‘one in five don’t even have two pairs of shoes to wear to school’’ the Labour leader said in his state of the nation speech in Auckland.

Later in the week Cunliffe was challenged by Prime Minister John Key in Parliament to quote the source of the claim (as had Right wing commentators), but he did not do so.

His office is now ignoring questions on whether he sticks by it, but the foundations are shaky.

Staff confirmed that it was based on the report last year of Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills, which said 17 per cent of children (which is one in six, not one in five) were exposed to ‘‘a range of economising behaviours’’.

These included having at least two pairs of shoes in good repair, but could also mean parents cut back on fresh fruit, limit heating or avoid going to the doctor to save cash.

The report this all comes from I blogged on last week. It clearly states that only one in 20 families can;t afford two pairs of shoes. Cunliffe’s figure was 400% higher.

Stuff reports:

The first of five controversial charter schools was opened today by Prime Minister John Key, in South Auckland.

South Auckland Middle School (SAMS) is co-educational, caters for years 7 – 10 and is particularly focused on Maori and Pacific students. It will begin its first term next week with a role of 110.

Called partnership schools by the government, the programme was part of a confidence and supply agreement with ACT, and offers an alternative education for parents looking for something different for their children, Key said. 

“I think this is important because it gives parents choice. It is just one small addition to the education system in New Zealand,” Key said.

Five new schools in some of the most deprived areas.

The new charter school in Manurewa features a four-hour academic morning, while the afternoon is devoted to sport, music and culture. 

It’s that flexibility which is important for charter schools.

“The strength in the system is that you are contracting for performance and if you don’t get that performance then you can cease to continue with the contract,” Key said.

More accountability than standard schools.

The school’s website is here.

Tracy Watkins writes at Stuff:

This week Cunliffe had his own ‘‘show me the money’’ moment. 

Labour’s $500 million dollar “Best Start” package should have put National on the spot over its own support for new parents.

But what unfolded instead was a shambles over which parents would qualify for the $60 a week baby bonus. That succeeded only in giving National a platform from which to erode confidence both in the package and Labour’s fiscal credibility.

It is tempting to think the policy fell victim to Labour’s desire to dress it up as something other than its 2011 campaign promise to extend the $60-a-week in work tax credit to beneficiaries.

That policy was hugely popular within Labour’s activist base but deeply unpopular among the so-called ‘‘battlers’’ Labour spent most of its 2011 campaign talking about.

Broadening that policy by extending it to households earning up to $150,000 a year makes it more politically palatable among the middle-income nesters. But by years two and three of the baby bonus, the rules around eligibility are squarely pitched at beneficiary households. 

The extension to paid parental leave helps sweeten that pill among working couples. But Cunliffe’s omission of the fact they would not also receive the baby bonus for the first six months while they were receiving paid parental leave was a mistake.

In Key’s words, it looked tricky.

And their advertisement implied that you would get both.

Architect of the policy was Labour’s welfare spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern, but she was not on hand later in the week when Cunliffe fumbled again over detail of the policy.

Finance spokesman David Parker has been strangely absent from the debate, meanwhile. 

Looking back at the days of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, it is hard not to imagine the former finance minister stepping in to monster his opponents on the fiscal detail when necessary.

I think David Parker was too busy trying to stop David Clark banning Facebook!

Labour’s front bench will be demanding a post mortem on what went wrong. 

Cunliffe may have put the cart before the horse in announcing a big ticket package before opening the books on Labour’s alternative budget.

In an election which will hinge on economic credibility, Labour has not yet  found a way to neutralise National’s narrative that it is the more prudent fiscal  manager.

Labour’s problem is that it has opposed pretty much every single decision of fiscal restraint taken in the last five years.

Enjoy.

I’ve been leaked a copy of the draft an unoffical Green Party List. This is the version done by the hierarchy and leadership. The initial draft list is done by the hierarchy and then members then get to vote on this, and tweak it. They often do make some changes, but the bulk of the rankings don’t change much.

1. Russel Norman (+1 from 2011)
2. Metiria Turei (-1)
3. Kevin Hague (nc)
4. Eugenie Sage (+2)
5. Catherine Delahunty (-1)
6. Julie Anne Genter (+7)
7. Gareth Hughes (nc)
8. Kennedy Graham (-3)
9. Denise Roche (+2)
10. Jan Logie (-1)
11. Marama Davidson (new)
12. Holly Walker (nc)
13. Mojo Mathers (+1)
14. Aaryn Barlow (+4)
15. James Shaw (nc)
16. Steffan Browning (-6)
17. David Clendon (-9)
18. Dora Langsbury (+4)
19. Barry Coates (new)
20. Sea Rotman (nc)

So the big winner is Julie-Anne Genter who in 2011 was ranked below Holly Walker, but has shot up to 6th place – twice as high as Holly. Genter has been a very hard and effective worker, so no surprise.

Browning and Clendon face demotion to unwinnable places.

Women make up nine of the top 13 of the draft list. Imagine the outcry if it was the other way around!

Davidson looks likely to become an MP, if this list is accepted. Aaryn Barlow may make it in also, which if they got 14 MPs, would make around 30% of their caucus Maori.

It will be interesting to see the final list, and if Clendon and Browning remain in unwinnable spots.

Also interesting to see if the well respected James Shaw gets higher than 15.

UPDATE: Just had clarified that this is not the official draft list out together by the hierarchy. That process begins in around two weeks.

The source who provided this says this is a draft that has circulated internally among some members. The source is reliable as they also provided the official draft list to me last time.

So the list that the hierarchy draws up, is not necessarily this list. The official process has yet to begin. No doubt we will see in time if the official list resembles this unofficial one doing the rounds.

The NZ Herald editorial:

David Cunliffe delivered one indisputably accurate comment during his State of the Nation address this week. “We need,” he said, “to put our resources where they will do the most good.” The Labour Party leader was referring to the requirement of any government to focus on children, but his comment was appropriate for any spending of taxpayer money. Why, then, does he propose paying families earning up to $150,000 a sum of $60 a week for each newborn baby until the child’s first birthday? Clearly, most people earning anywhere near the top of that range and many middle-income earners have no need for such money. Government resources would, therefore, be being put where they do the least good.

It’s an attempt to buy votes, but one that I think will fail. Most families that are better off would rather receive tax cuts than welfare. Better to pay less tax in the first place, than to be over-taxed and then have the Government hand back to you some of your own tax money as welfare.

The Dom Post editorial:

What is needed is a two-stage referendum, like the two-stage referendum on MMP. The first, held at the general election, should ask if people want a change. If a majority does, a year later another vote could choose the design.

There should be a nationwide design competition, with an independent body choosing a shortlist of three designs. Voters could then choose by a process of preferential voting. That way, the new flag would have majority support.

I like the idea of a two stage referendum, but the order the Dom Post proposes is flawed in my view. People won’t vote for a change without knowing what the alternative is.

I’d do an initial vote at the election to choose an alternative from say four designs.

Then once an alternative design has been chosen, have a stand alone referendum where you choose between the current NZ flag and the design which won the earlier vote.

A Q+A with Colin Craig:

Hi Colin,

Do you support the ending of fluoridation in New Zealand?

If you do support ending fluoridation how would you go about a transparent process where all information from both sides of the debate could be heard fairly and equitably. 

I am referencing the $47k (minimum) spent by the WDHB (taxpayers money) against the $12k provided by Fluoride Free Hamilton (This amount was collected from donations from individual donors). 
 

Thanks,
Kane 

Hi Kane and thanks for your questions. My view is as follows;

Water supply and the treatment of town water supplies is managed at a local level. I support councils having referendum on this issue (costs are minimised if information and forms are sent out with rates notices) to determine what the public wants. Information sent to voters should give fair and equal chance for both those for and against to have their say. In this electronic age I suggest council establishing a website to give the same equal opportunity to both sides to present their case.

People who do not have a computer can of course access the council information website at their local public library if they are interested. This approach helps level the playing field when it comes to who has the deeper pockets, as the primary information source is balanced.

Yes my personal view is that water should be delivered to households as chemical free as reasonably possible, while still being safe to drink – i.e. without fluoride. 

I support more awareness of the concerns around fluoridation. When properly informed, I do think many communities will choose non-fluoridation.

Cheers
Colin

I think if communities are properly informed, most will choose fluoridation – and have been recently.

Stuff reports:

David Seymour, 30, who is running only for the Epsom candidacy, has campaigned for ACT, headed its student body and spent years working for conservative think tanks in Canada. 

He was also the most popular with the crowd. 

“If that was a hair growing contest I would be home and hosed,” said Seymour, a tribute to his competitors’ shiny bald heads, to laughter from the crowd. 

And his youth does not mean he is not inexperienced, said Seymour, who spoke of his work with John Banks in formulating the partnership school policy. 

“I am closer to the median age of Epsom, which is 35, than both of these guys, and I am moving closer to it as I speak,” he said, again bringing laughter from the crowd. 

Seymour emphasised ACT’s role in lowering taxes and creating a safer New Zealand. 

I probably should have mentioned Seymour in my post earlier this week. Seymour is one of the brighter people in politics, is an excellent debater and like Whyte has excellent classical liberal credentials. If he does become an MP, he would be an excellent one.

But despite his clever trick with the median age (the relevant stat is the median age of the voting population, not the entire population), my concern is that the relatively conservative Epsom electorate might not be willing to vote for someone just out of his 20s, especially with 25% of the electorate Asian. That is why I said Boscawen was the obvious choice for Epsom.

However I understand that Jamie Whyte may also now stand for both the Epsom candidacy and for the leadership. That complicates things, and simplifies things.

A few in ACT have liked the idea of Boscawen for Epsom and Whyte for Leader. However they have said that the problem is it leaves the Leader reliant on another MP. Hence a lot of pressure has gone on for Whyte to stand for both.

But one woman, who would not be named, believed Seymour, whose forefather was one of the signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi, filled a demographic ACT lacks.

“I think the young chap would be ideal because he is part Maori. ACT is very short on Maori and women,” she said.   

I didn’t know that about Seymour.

Seymour is a popular figure in the party, and as the story states had the most support at the meeting. He has quite a few backers on the ACT Board.

So it seems there are six possible decision for the Board on Sunday. They are:

1. Whyte for Leader and Epsom
2. Boscawen for Leader and Epsom
3. Whyte for Leader and Boscawen for Epsom
4. Whyte for Leader and Seymour for Epsom
5. Boscawen for Leader Seymour for Epsom
6. Boscawen for Leader and Whyte for Epsom

I regard 5 and 6 as unlikely. Is Boscawen is Leader, I expect he will be the Epsom candidate also.

No 4 is what was being pushed by the Whyte/Seymour fan club. However concern over a split role may lead to No 1 happening if their supporters have the majority on the board.

No 3 I did regard as a credible outcome, but there seems to be concern over splitting the role.

No 2 is the outcome sought by Boscawen and his supporters.

I welcome comments from readers as to which combination they would prefer, and would the decision be enough to make you vote ACT?

The above is from the book “Luck” by Ed Smith.

It is interesting that a head of government does better when the world economy is strong, rather than when their local economy is strong compared to the world economy.

That makes the high ratings for John Key the more remarkable when you consider that the world economy has been so lacklustre for the last five years.

And something from further afield today.  This lizard was found in the Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve in Yunnan. Obviously its coming to the end of a moult.  This area is one of the most diverse for wildlife in China.  Try to find the spots the Chinese local tourists don’t frequent.

Click for larger, higher res image.

As we all know now Labour lied when they said 60,000 families a year will get Labour’s promised $3000 baby bribe or “Best Start Payment”.  We now know that the 25,000 families who get paid parental leave will not get it for a year, just six months. So they’ll get $1,500 only – not $3.000

But the fine print also reveals that the 15,000 families who get the Parental Tax Credit of $1,200 will lose that, so their net gain will be a mere $1,800.

The PTC goes to families who do not get paid parental leave, are not on a benefit and earn under $80,000 to $110,000 (depending on number of children).

So that means only around 20,000 families will get the full $3,000 that Labour claimed 60,000 families will get.

So who are those 20,000 families. They are either beneficiaries or those earning around $100,000 to $150,000. They are the only ones who get the full $3,000.

Not exactly well targeted support. And very different to what Labour’s speech and advertisement said.

If Labour hadn’t wanted to deceive, they would have done tables showing how different families would be impacted – what they gain and what they lose. But instead they did tables just showing what they gain.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei is accusing National Party MPs of “pure racism” after comments in Parliament about her home and clothing.

Pure racism? What did they say?

East Coast MP and Police Minister Anne Tolley said today that Turei, lived in a castle and wore designer clothes.

Speaking during the debate on the Prime Minister John Key’s opening statement to Parliament, Tolley said she was insulted by Green Party claims that she was out of touch.

She said said her role as an electorate MP included meetings with constituents who were among the poorest in the country.

“I’m actually insulted to be lectured about how out of touch I am with average New Zealand by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle and comes to the House in $2000 designed jackets and tells me I’m out of touch,” Tolley said.

I don’t think Turei’s choices of clothes are relevant, and Tolley could have made her point without referring to them. But how in God’s name do you conclude that her comments are racist?

MPs often have a go at each other for their apparent wealth. We hear all the time about John Key having a holiday home in Hawaii, or David Cunliffe living in Herne Bay.  This may be petty, but it is not racist.

Asked about Tolley’s comments, Turei said racism was behind the attack.

“I’m shocked that the National Party would attack me and my home and my appearance. I think it is a racist attack,” she said.

Turei is playing the race card, as a defensive measure.

“I think they seem to think it is all right for them to wear perfectly good suits for their professional job but that a Maori woman from a working-class background is not entitled to do the same. I think it is pure racism.”

Ask how the attack was racist, Turei said she shopped at the same place some of her opponents did.

“They do not think that a professional Maori woman from a working-class background should be able to wear good suits to work,” she said.

Turei seems to be projecting, to put it mildly. They were attacking her for being sanctimonious, not Maori.

Turei said it was unfair to attack her home.

“MPs’ homes have always been outside of the acceptable realms of debate, and so this very personal, very explicit attack, I think, comes from their inability to cope with my work and the effectiveness of my work, and an inherent racism.”

Oh what nonsense. Opposition MPs rant and rave about John Key’s house all the time. Cunliffe’s house also comes in for mention on a regular basis. Neither of them claim it is racism.

Asked whether there was any irony in a Left-wing political leader wearing expensive clothing, she said: “Do you ask that question of David Cunliffe? Do you ask that question of any other political leader or any other politician?

Basically yes. People comment all the time that Cunliffe lives in an incredibly expensive house in a very expensive suburb. Now one can have a view as to whether that is relevant – but Turei is not alone in having jibes about the contrast between claiming to represent the down trodden and their lifestyle.  Also Winston Peters choice of expensive clothes have received lots of comments in the past.

“I’m simply not prepared to pander to that. This is a racist attack by National and I’m not prepared to pander to it.”

Tolley described Turei’s comments as “absolute nonsense”.

“The Greens’ co-leader is entitled to turn up in Parliament every day in expensive designer clothes, and good on her for doing just that,” Tolley said.

As I said, I don’t think what Turei wears is relevant. But Turei playing the race card as a defence is rather sad.

The so called living wage is calculated by Rev Waldegrave as the amount a family with two children needs to live on, taking into account current welfare payments.

If Labour’s baby bribe gets implemented this will pay $60 a week to some families with an under three. That is $1.50 per hour, so hence the living wage drops from $18.40 to $16.90 an hour. Hooray.

Will those City Councils that have vowed to introduce the living wage, set it at $16.90 an hour instead of $18.40 an hour if Labour win?

Captions below. As always funny, not nasty. Enjoy.

Amanda Ripley at Talking Points Memo writes:

There is just one valid way to compare how students from different socio-economic backgrounds do on this same international test. And that’s to look at the scores for kids at different income levels, data the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) routinely collects. What we see from the data is that our poorest kids perform worse than their peers in other countries—and so do our richest kids. Even our middle-class kids score worse than middle-class kids in Germany, Finland, New Zealand and Korea, among other places. Our kids do better in reading than in math or science—but they don’t tend to score at the very top of the world in any subject.

Countries with significant levels of child poverty now outperform the U.S. on international tests (Canada, Estonia, Poland and Vietnam, for example). So the urgent question is not whether we must fix poverty before we fix schools (or fix schools before we fix poverty). The question is, What did these other countries do to help mitigate against the toxic effects of poverty? And what can we learn from them?

Poverty is a factor, but as the US results show it is not a determining one.

To me, the value of the international educational comparisons is not to prove who is right or wrong; it is to see what is possible, to find the outliers and try to learn from them. Poland, which has a 16 percent child-poverty rate and spends dramatically less than we do per pupil, had worse PISA scores than we did in 2000. Today, Polish 15-year-olds outscore their American peers in math, reading and science. Poland has more teenagers performing at an advanced level in math than Finland (which has a mere 4 percent child poverty rate). Meanwhile, other countries have very low levels of child poverty but end up with worse education outcomes than Poland (Norway and Sweden come to mind).

Fascinating.

The Huffington Post also reports:

The data was provided to The WorldPost by Pablo Zoido, an analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the group behind PISA. It shows that students’ wealth does not necessarily make them more competitive on an international scale. In the United States, for example, the poorest kids scored around a 433 out of 700 on the math portion of PISA, while the wealthiest ones netted about a 547. The lower score comes in just below the OECD average for the bottom decile (436), but the higher score also comes in below the OECD average for the top decile (554).

A spy informs me that Parliament is a bit dry at the moment as Bellamys’ liquor license wasn’t renewed in time, and won’t be renewed until the end of the week.

John Armstrong writes:

John Key was looking forward to a good old-fashioned stoush in Parliament yesterday. He did not get one. A new year and Labour is experimenting with a new tactic to spike the Prime Minister’s potent verbal guns. That tactic is to simply ignore him when he holds the floor for any length of time.

Heh, they’ve given up!

When it comes to one-upmanship, Key performs best when he is feeding off Opposition insults. He thrives on interruptions and the challenge of winging it with devastating put-downs of his adversaries. Usually being on the end of all that, Labour well knows it.

This is like Labour in the 1970s when Kirk instructed his MPs not to try and engage with Muldoon in the House!

Depriving Key of a crucial audience took some of the sting out of his mixture of barbs and pre-rehearsed jokes at Labour’s expense. Labour could not claim a victory. But the party probably denied Key being able to claim one either.

This was underlined when Cunliffe got to his feet. He is normally an impressive orator in a Parliament sadly short of such creatures.

But not yesterday. His relentlessly negative diatribe on Key’s and National’s perceived faults was too over the top to ring true and failed to answer one pertinent question. If things are going as badly wrong in New Zealand as Cunliffe claims, why are Key and National still so popular?

“You can do better than that, David,” interjected National’s Tau Henare at one point. The backbencher’s critique was one with which it was difficult to quibble.

Not a good start of the year for Labour.