I blogged previously about the outrageous antics and rorting at EXMSS, the Massey Extra-Mural Students’ Society.

EXMSS is primarily funded by Massey University, and many (including the local newspaper and myself) have called on them to intervene. It seems they have listened. The university has e-mailed students:

From today Massey University will deliver the services it previously funded EXMSS to deliver to distance (extramural) students. These include advocacy services and administration of hardship grants.

The University wants its students to have uninterrupted access to these services, particularly as they are preparing for exams.

Distance students seeking assistance with these services or information about them should phone the Massey University Contact Centre.

Hopefully this means the EXMSS President will no longer be able to get their friends to keep voting her a larger salary for a part-time job.

A guest post by Greens MP Gareth Hughes:

London School of Economics on copyright.

A new report out by the London School of Economics busts some of the myths around copyright infringement and the laws passed that try to punish online file-sharing. 

The London School of Economics Media Policy Project has published a report entitled “Copyright & Creation: A Case for Promoting Inclusive Online Sharing”, which argues ‘The creative industries are innovating to adapt to a changing digital culture and evidence does not support claims about overall revenue reduction due to individual copyright infringement,’ and that a punitive approach risks ‘incentives for innovation and growth will be weakened.’

It’s a timely report that challenges the claims the music industry is at mortal peril from online file-sharers and that graduated response regimes like our Copyright (Infringing File-Sharing) Amendment Act, or more popularly known as the ‘Skynet Law’ are the best way forward to address the challenge of copyright infringement.

I am a Spotify premium subscriber and I just love being able to access a lot of the world’s music conveniently, portably and legally for a small monthly charge. It is one example where the music industry is innovating and adapting to the digital world profitably. The report notes in 2013, for the first time UK revenues for online music was higher than for CDs and vinyl combined as part of overall revenue growth. The report recommends a review of the UKs stalled Skynet-style law, the Digital Economy Act and that ‘a copyright enforcement model that is out of touch with today’s online culture will only supress innovation and dampen growth.’

Another recent paper, this one published from Australia’s Monash University on copyright enforcement also found graduated response or three-strike laws internationally, including New Zealand’s own ‘Skynet Law’ were not working. In New Zealand’s case the report found the law was hardly acting as an effective deterrent to reduce online copyright infringement and people were simply switching from Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing sites to other methods such as cyber-lockers to obtain content

The New Zealand Government unfortunately has decided to delay the anticipated copyright review and with more reports published challenging the effectiveness of graduated response regimes to copyright infringement as seen in our Skynet Law it’s time the Government reopened the copyright debate and let evidence set policy. I would much rather the Government put their energy into promoting legal content over punitive laws that stifle innovation and plainly don’t work.

The London School of Economics report is a very good read at debunking the myth of revenues dropping.

I wouldn’t rush to judgement on how the NZ law is working. The level of fines have been reasonably modest, and what I will be interested in is how many infringement notices in total got issued over a year, how many went to a second and a third strike.

Audrey Young reports:

Labour’s trade spokesman and a former Trade Minister Phil Goff says he understands why the Government is not releasing text of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement but says it could be doing more to communicate with New Zealanders.

His position is more moderate than that of new Labour leader David Cunliffe, a former diplomat, who called on the Government to release the draft text on his first day in the job. …

Asked for a response to the online campaign by some New Zealand celebrities to release draft text of the TPP, Mr Goff said that would probably not be possible.

The 12 parties would have an agreement that the text could not be revealed.

“You probably can’t breach that agreement but what you can do and what the Government hasn’t done is broadly spell out its negotiating position,” he told the Herald.

Goff is playing this straight, while Cunliffe has been talking nonsense on this (and he knows it as a former diplomat). I’m all for more openness in some of our treaty or trade negotiations, but it is simply impossible to unilaterally release a negotiating text. You’d be effectively expelled from the negotiation.

All countries need to agree to to release a text. New Zealand has no authority to release a draft text. At the beginning of negotiations, it is agreed whether drafts will be released or not, and the international default is they are not. If you do not have agreement from other countries to release a draft text, and you do it anyway, then they’ll never trust you again. You won’t be allowed into any negotiations more significant than the protection of small snails convention.

Personally it would be good if there had been agreement when the talks began (under Labour) for draft texts to be released at certain stages. But you can’t unilaterally change or ignore the rules later on.

What is a worry is that Cunliffe knows this beyond any doubt. He has been a trade negotiator (according to his CV). When he called for NZ to release the draft text, he knew absolutely that it was impossible and if NZ did so, they’d be effectively expelled from the negotiations.

I’m glad to see Phil Goff is not acting so irresponsibly.

But what will Cunliffe think of Goff contradicting him? If Goff the one MP that has yet to swear loyalty to Cunliffe and Cunliffe has pledged to expel from party membership if he doesn’t get it? It’s probably Mallard, but might not be.

Personally I think Goff should pledge to be just as loyal to Cunliffe as Cunliffe was to him. How could he complain about that as a loyalty pledge? 🙂

Bernard Orsman reports at NZ Herald:

Len Brown has not built a single metre of bus lane in his first term as mayor of the Super City.

Mr Brown, who says fixing public transport, including better bus services, is his top priority, has splurged $770 million on public transport and $1.2 billion on roads and footpaths in the past three years.

But not a cent has gone on new lanes to improve bus services, which have drawn criticism and seen a fall of 2.9 per cent in patronage over the past year, from 55.1 million bus trips to 53.5 million.

I use buses in Wellington several times a week. Measures like bus lanes can make a huge improvement to public transport. Buses are flexible – their routes can change, their stops can change, and they are far easier to utilize for changes in capacity.

Good public transport needs buses and trains. Those who prioritise trains over buses unfairly do public transport a dis-service.

The pro-public transport blog said it was not good enough that no bus lanes had been built when more were needed. It said bus lanes carried more people than general traffic lanes, made buses faster, more reliable, roads more efficient and reduced operating subsidies.

Mr Brown does not have a strong record of building bus lanes. Manukau City, where he was a councillor and mayor, has just 3km of them, compared with 31km in the Auckland City area. North Shore has 9km. Waitakere – the so-called Eco City – has no bus lanes, only short bus “advance” lanes at some big intersections.

Wellington has some bus lanes. They do make a difference.

The Herald editorial:

New Zealanders will be mildly amused that their Prime Minister has stepped into the breach left by US President Barack Obama’s inability to be at Bali this week to chair an important meeting of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. But we can be proud, too, that New Zealand still has a leading role in this project. …

It would be easy for such an ambitious project to become unwieldy and lose focus as more countries join the talks. There is always the risk that late-comers are joining the talks for the sake of appearances rather than with a serious intent.

But the last to join, Japan, seems serious. In fact its reformist Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, may be the leader keenest to have something definite agreed by the end of this year. That goal, set by President Obama, should concentrate the minds of the meeting that it falls to John Key to chair.

If Japan agrees to a phasing out of agricultural tariffs, that would be huge.

But if it can lower barriers to our exports, New Zealand may have to make concessions in other areas. Since trade negotiations typically proceed in secrecy so that positions are not solidified by political pressure, the possible concessions can arouse fearful speculative opposition.

Opponents of TPP in New Zealand fear the Government will have to compromise on pharmaceutical purchasing, forcing Pharmac to buy prescription drugs on terms dictated by suppliers, particularly in the United States. More generally, opponents warn that the foreign companies will be able to claim damages in international courts against any Government decision that harms their investment here.

The other area of potential concern is around the US proposed intellectual property chapter. It has provisions in it such as extending copyright from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years. I think life plus 20 is more than enough personally.

To date the NZ Government position has been to reject clauses that would require a change to our existing IP laws. I hope that position continues. There can be economic costs to having overly restrictive IP laws – as Australia has calculated.

The Herald reports:

Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson says new Census data which show that New Zealand population growth has halved since the last Census could prompt revision of Auckland’s infrastructure plans such as an increase in high-rise apartments and the construction of a city rail loop.

But Auckland Council is standing by its plans for growth, saying that Auckland is expected to grow faster than the rest of the country.

The council’s planning for the next 30 years is based on the prediction that the number of residents will grow by 1 million.

Mr Williamson said the first Census data in seven years indicated that this projection was far too high.

Statistics New Zealand figures released yesterday showed that on Census night, there were 214,101 more people in New Zealand than at the previous Census in 2006. This meant the population had grown by 31,000 a year over the past seven years, compared to 58,000 a year in the previous period of 2001 to 2006.

“This is a huge surprise – bigger than Ben Hur,” Mr Williamson said. “It’s nearly half the growth rate that everyone had been basing their historic numbers on.”

This is why I think the Government’s funding position on the CRL is smart. Budgeted to start in 2010 2020, but with the provision to start earlier if there is sufficient population growth etc leading to inner city employment growth.

The planning documents assume that the region will grow by 2.2 per cent a year. As a result, they include proposals for more high-rise, small apartments in the suburbs and 160,000 homes outside the existing urban boundaries.

The Census data showed a national average increase of 0.75 per cent in population per year, but regional growth would not be revealed until next week.

One can make a dirty estimate if you ignore changes in the Maori roll.

The 21 electorates mainly in Auckland had an electoral population of 1,205,678 in 2006 and of 1,318,141 in 2013. That is growth of 112,463 or 9.3% over seven years.

That equates to an average growth of almost 1.3% a year – well below the 2.2%.

What difference does this make over time?

Well 2.2% a year for 30 years is a 92% growth while 1.3% for 30 years is a 47.3% growth.

What difference does that make to projected population? Well on 1.5 million current population the 2.2% figure means an extra 1.4 million residents while the 1.3% figure means an extra 710,000 – so a difference of around 700,000 Aucklanders.

I look forward to people claiming that we should ignore the census data and not change the Auckland plan. Of course we should wait for the official figures next week.

James Weir at Stuff reports:

Some wealthy multinationals are thumbing their noses at the taxman and are not paying their fair share of tax, according to Labour.

Not sure what a fair share is. I think the requirement is to pay your legal share.

An example is the Wellington power lines company which appears to take an “optional” approach to paying tax, says the party’s associate finance spokesman David Clark.

Companies Office documents show Inland Revenue is auditing the books of the company, Wellington Electricity, which is linked to Asia’s richest man Li Ka-Shing.

If IRD is auditing them, then they are presumably checking that they are paying the amount of tax they should.

Wellington Electricity has paid no company tax since its sale by Auckland-based Vector in 2008 for $785 million.

The tax losses came despite healthy profits at operating “ebit” level of close to $50m a year in 2012. Clark claimed the lines company looked to be avoiding tax and was an example of “those who are wealthy finding it optional to pay tax in New Zealand”.

EBIT is earnings before interest and tax.  Money doesn’t grow on trees. Of course a company deducts the interest on debt off their profit to decide taxable income. Is Labour proposing that tax be levied on EBIT rather than net profit? I think they once suggested it be based on turnover which was beyond scary.

The electricity lines company may not be doing anything illegal, but getting around the law, “doesn’t make it right”, he said.

So what is the point of this story? Is Labour proposing a law change? The IRD are already auditing. What more does David Clark think should be done?

The debt looked “very aggressive” and it was perhaps no surprise IRD was carrying out an audit of past tax years.

If a company was being “aggressive” it was more likely to face an audit, but that was not to suggest it was doing anything illegal, the tax expert said.

Again, it is good IRD is auditing.

There were tax rules limiting debt to no more than 60 per cent of total assets, down from 75 per cent a few years ago, but even that 60 per cent was high and could make a mess of profits.

The Government is looking at rules around debt ratios. “You can expect some announcement around thin capitalisation rules later in the year, so the settings are appropriate with no incentive for multinationals to structure their affairs to avoid tax in New Zealand,” Revenue Minister Todd McLay said.

Thin cap rules limit the ability of a company to extract profits as interest payments while paying no tax.

So the Government is making changes in this area. So again what is Labour proposing that the Government is not doing. It’s easy to fire off a whining press release. It’s harder to come up with a policy position that one can meaningfully assess for pros and cons.

The accounts released by Treasury just before the 2008 election showed a decade of deficits projected. A few weeks later the books had deteriorated further that the fiscal settings inherited from Labour were projecting a permanent structural deficit – which means debt increasing until you end up like Greece.

In just five years there has been a remarkable turn-around. Labour and Greens have fought and opposed every piece of spending restraint done by the Government. They fought for every single public sector job there was. They decried the reductions in the subsidies for KiwiSaver. I hate to think what the books would be looking like now if the Government had not changed.

Bill English has announced the final accounts for 2012/13:

Higher tax revenue and lower than forecast core Crown expenses helped to more than halve the Government’s operating deficit before gains and losses to $4.4 billion in the year to 30 June 2013, compared with a $9.2 billion deficit the previous year.

Halving the deficit is well done.

The result was considerably better than the $7.9 billion deficit forecast by Treasury at the start of the financial year in Budget 2012, and confirms the Government’s prudent approach to fiscal management is paying dividends, Finance Minister Bill English says.

Coming in $3.5 billion under the budget is even better.

“The National-led Government has consistently examined how public services are delivered,” he says. “This has allowed us to reduce costs while improving the services New Zealanders receive, as well as helping the people of Canterbury following the earthquakes.

“We are well on track to return to Budget surplus in 2014/15. It’s important we get there because, until we do, we will continue to increase our debt. Despite the considerable progress we are making, there is no room for complacency.

“In the past financial year, we were still borrowing a net $110 million a week, compared to almost $260 million a week in 2010/11. Once we reach surplus, we will then have choices about reducing our debt and investing more in priority public services and important infrastructure.

The Government have had to fund billions of dollars for the Christchurch rebuild. I recall Greens (and I think Labour) demanding New Zealanders be hit with a special extra tax to fund the rebuild. Their solution was to tax more rather than restrain spending elsewhere and prioritise.

The Government remains on track to reduce expenses to 30 per cent of GDP by 2016/17, down from around 35 per cent of GDP in 2010/11, Mr English says.

30% is still too high when you consider the size of the local government sector also. But it is a positive trend.

Sir Gil Simpson writes in The Press:

When we see evidence of “no one fit to govern” we need to find a democratic way of telling our politicians exactly that. Low voter turn out is viewed (secretly) by some politicians as a good indicator that they will be re-elected – not as voters dissatisfied with the choice.

Starting with local body elections we could make a change that would enable voters to demand better performance from our politicians.

In Canterbury we have some experience of this by commissioners being appointed to ECan. At the time there was a protest campaign to describe this as the government taking away our democracy.

Why should the government do this? Perhaps we should have the democratic right to ask the government to appoint commissioners?

I suggest that on every local body ballot paper an additional candidate is created which says “Appoint commissioners”. The local citizens would be democratically choosing, if in sufficient numbers, an action for the government to take.

If “appoint commissioners” were added to the next ballot for Ecan then the voters view would be made clear.

If, say, 50 per cent voted for this then the government could appoint half of Ecan’s council members from the best-polling candidates and half from suitable technocrats.

If we look forward to the Christchurch City Council elections in 2016 and “appoint commissioners” was going to be a choice on the ballot paper.

Aware of this, the elected members of our 2013 council would be suitably encouraged to act responsibly so that the voters will retain or regain confidence in them.

It’s not a bad idea. It is a type of no confidence option. Such an option could be very popular in Wellington City as well as Christchurch City.

Even if a threshold of appointing commissioners is not reached but if, say, more than 15 per cent of those who voted said appoint commissioners, then it would be a very foolhardy politician who ignored the clear message of dissatisfaction from the voters. When commissioners are appointed no seat is “safe”.

Worth looking at this option for next year’s review of local electoral laws.

The Herald reports:

Mark Lundy’s murder convictions have been quashed and he has been granted leave for a retrial by the Privy Council in London.

Lundy was convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in August 2000, and was sentenced to a jail term of at least 20 years.

His case was taken to the Privy Council and a three-day appeal hearing was held in June.

In its decision – released tonight – the Privy Council unanimously decided that Lundy’s appeal should be allowed; that the convictions should be quashed; that Lundy should stand trial again on the charges of murder as soon as possible; and until then, and subject to any High Court decision on bail, Mr Lundy should remain in custody.

READ THE FULL PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT HERE

I’ve decided that everyone ever charged with murder is innocent.

There’s obviously one very successful serial killer running around that has managed to kill the Swedish backpackers, the Lundys, the Bains, Ben & Olivia and oh year probably Mona Blades also.

They may also have popped over to the US and killed Nicole Simpson.  One can not rule out their involvement in the assassinations of JFK and MLK.

I just hope they never come after me, as if so they will obviously frame someone else for my murder.

The Police have announced:

Scientific analysis by fingerprint and firearms experts do not support claims that gun powder residue caused the marks on Robin Bain’s fingers. 

Police have released an analysis of the original fingerprints taken from Robin Bain plus a report on testing of the firearm used in the Bain homicides.

This follows claims by the 3rd Degree programme in June that marks on pictures of Robin Bain’s thumb were caused by gun powder residue from the firearm’s magazine.

Police fingerprint experts examined the original post mortem fingerprint forms taken at the mortuary and compared those to the marks seen in the photographs of Robin Bain’s thumb and forefinger.

That examination confirmed that features were observed in the fingerprints which corresponded accurately with the marks shown in the photographs.

The experts concluded that this was strongly indicative that the marks shown in the photographs were the result of minor superficial damage to the skin surface.

Tests were also carried out by an ESR firearms expert on the weapon used in the Bain homicides. These tests aimed to replicate residue marks that were similar in appearance and position to the marks shown in the photographs of Robin Bain’s fingers.

The scientist formed the opinion that although there appeared to be a pair of lines on Mr Bain’s thumb that could have resulted from loading a cartridge into a magazine, there was considerable doubt that the shape, dimensions and colour of the marks on Mr Bain’s thumb were consistent with marks made as a result of loading a cartridge into a magazine.

“These tests have been carried out using accredited experts in controlled conditions with access to the original exhibits and in the presence of Mr Bain’s advocates” says Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess.

“The most likely explanation for the marks on the photographs would seem to be pre-existing damage or injury to the skin on Robin Bain’s thumb.

I predict those with strong views on either side of the David vs Robin camp will not change their views!

The fingerprint report is very interesting and is here. The firearms report is less conclusive and is here.

Stats NZ has announced that higher population growth in the North Island compared to the South Island will see one extra electorate seat there. This will mean 16 SI seats, 48 NI seats and seven Maori seats. So there will be 71 electorate MPs and (if no overhang) 49 list MPs in the next Parliament.

The number of new seats is well down on what many were expecting, as the long gap between censuses and the expected drop in Christchurch population had most people expecting three new seats.

When MMP started it was 65 electorate seats to 55 list seats, and now will be 71 to 49. At some stage in the future there won’t be enough list seats to retain proportionality unless one has a fixed ratio.

The three quotas for electorate boundaries are:

• SI 59,679 (56,696 to 62,662 5% tolerance)
• NI 59,731 (56,745 to 62,717)
• Maori 60,141 (57,134 to 63,148)

Since the 2006 census, the SI electoral population has grown by 3.7%, the NI by 6.6% and the Maori electoral population by just 0.9%.

The seats that are the most over quota and must lose territory are:

1. Auckland Central 70,406
2. Hunua 68,951
3. Helensville 68,026
4. Selwyn 67,818
5. Rodney 67,134
6. Wigram 65,433
7. Waitaki 64,962
8. Hamilton East 64,577
9. Waimakariri 64,454
10. Wellington Central 64,374
11. Rangitata 64,142
12. East Coast Bays 64,005
13. Maungakiekie 63,274
14. Epsom 62,990
15. Tāmaki 62,779
16. Tauranga 62,741

So those 16 seats must shrink. What seats are under the 5% tolerance and must grow:

1. Christchurch East 45,967
2. Port Hills 53,667
3. East Cost 53,960
4. Christchurch Central 54,104
5. Rangitikei 56,364

The other 49 seats can stay the same size in theory. But it is likely many will have some change because of flow on effects from neighbours.

So where might the extra seat be. Well the seats that are most over quota and in the same city are:

• Auckland Central 70,406
• Hunua 68,951
• Helensville 68,026
• Rodney 67,134
• East Coast Bays 64,005
• Maungakiekie 63,274
• Epsom 62,990
• Tāmaki 62,779

Those eight seats are together around 50,000 over the quota so the new seat will be in Auckland. Where in Auckland is harder but Rodney, East Coast Bays and Helensville are close together and are around 25,000 over quota so it could well be up around that area.

Auckland Central is the seat that will lose the most territory – it is 18% over quota.

In Christchurch you have Wigram, Selwyn, and Waimakariri 33% over quota combined and Chch East, Central and Port Hills around 42% under quota. So those three electorates will take territory off Wigram, Selwyn and Waimakariri. You will probably also see Selwyn ahift South to take some of the excess from Rangitata and Waitaki.

In Hamilton, Hamilton East is over the tolerance so will lose some territory.

In Wellington, Wellington Central needs to lose 5,000 or so. Ohariu is over quota (but within the 5% tolerance) and Rongotai is on quota. You could just have Rongotai take some territory off WC, but more likely is Ohariu takes some also and Ohariu loses some territory to Hutt South (which is under).

The two Dunedin seats are under quota but within the tolerance. They could grab some territory off Waitaki and Clutha-Southland,

Tauranga needs to lose a bit of territory also. Bay of Plenty also at the max, so East Coast, Coromandel and Rotorua are the logical places to pick up some territory from them.

Rangitikei needs to expand. Rangitikei may take some off Palmie. Whanganui is under quota so if they lost some they would need to take some off TKC who are also under quota so you could have a ripple effect there.

East Coast also needs to expand. Bay of Plenty is the easiest option. Napier is under quota so can’t give up much.

The Surveyor-General will draw up draft boundaries and bring them to the Representation Commission. The Commission will then consider them, modify them and release proposed boundaries. After that there are public submissions and then the Representation Commission will determine the final boundaries early next year.

Christchurch Mayoral candidate Kyle Chapman, of the so called NZ right wing resistance, has a profile page on VK.

Some people claim that Kyle and buddies are not really neo-nazis, just so called white pride etc.

Well these photos from his page should clear up any doubt.

So they worship the Nazis who exterminated millions of people based on their race. That is what they call white pride? Sad little fuckers.

They even appear to get turned on by wearing pretend uniforms.

The Police may wish to note this comment from Mayoral candidate Kyle Chapman:

Also will create the enforcer patches soon for those who have done violence for the crew.

Kyle has big plans also:

Retaliators SC is the future street force in this country and Australia, its sad that some people cant see these things untill its too late. They bury their heads in pride and over indulgent egos. Only the brotherhood of a mass movement will carry this movement forward, unleashed and focused…

They are mainly a threat to themselves, but I do hope none of them have a firearms licence:

I presume the fat one is Kyle?

He has been convicted of fire-bombing a marae, so one can’t be entirely complacent that their neo-nazi fantasies will remain in their bedrooms.

I wonder if any of them actually have a job? I doubt it.

Stats  NZ has published their latest annual income survey. Some interesting stats:

• Average income from wages/salaries up 6% in the last year
• Average income from all sources up 2.2% and median income from all sources up 2.7% which suggests less income inequality
• Median income for those in paid employment is $45,729 and average income is $53,759
• Median income for those with no qualifications is $39,002, $50,005 for a bachelors degree and $67,003 for a post-grad degree
• Age is a major factor in income. 50% of those in the bottom income quintile are aged under 25, while under 25s make up just 2% of the top income quintile. Those arguing that 16 year olds must get paid $18.40 an hour are basically buts.
• The average income for a couple with two dependent children is $97,924 while for a sole parent with dependent children is $37,126
• Government transfers represent 3% of the income of an average couple with two children and 46% of the income an an average sole parent.
• The median salary/wage for a 40 hour week  is $45,009 and the average is $54,229
• 1,197,100 people receive a Government transfer, 1,892,100 are in employment, 323,900 are self-employed

Rose Patterson writes at the NZ Initiative:

What kinds of things matter for student achievement? Is it class size, school journals, the school building, or a flash new gym?

These may play a role at the margin, but they pale in significance next to what research conclusively shows is the most important in-school factor for student achievement: the teacher.

On Monday, The New Zealand Initiative releases its first education report on teacher quality, and it comes at quite a precipitous time. As the ageing teacher workforce moves into retirement, New Zealand needs to not only replenish this workforce but attract the best and brightest into the teaching profession. And then, for teachers to develop to their full potential and to retain the best teachers, teaching must be a challenging and rewarding career.

Yet our report has uncovered some major problems in the career development of teachers in New Zealand. Aside from going into school administration, there is little opportunity, challenge, and recognition for a teacher to further develop their skills and capability. Also, the maximum salary point is reached after eight years. It is obvious what kind of signal this sends: teachers have reached their maximum ability after eight years.

One of the problems of fixed salary scales. I think our top teachers should be able to earn over $100,000 a year (without having to take up administrative roles). But I also think you shouldn’t have poor teachers earning the same as the best teachers.

I’m looking forward to reading the report, and seeing what ideas are promoted to help with teacher recruitment and retention.

Audrey Young reports:

Prime Minister John Key will replace US President Barack Obama as chairman of a top-level meeting in Bali this week.

On Friday afternoon, Obama cancelled his trip to the leaders’ summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum on the island because of the American Budget crisis that has resulted in about 800,000 Government workers not being paid.

US Secretary of State John Kerry will represent Obama at the summit, and at the Trans Pacific Partnership meeting on the sidelines.

NZ Trade Minister Tim Groser said it was decided yesterday that Key should chair the meeting of the 12 countries negotiating the TPP agreement.

The 12 countries are Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Their combined GDP is around US$25.4 trillion.

Stuff reports:

Police in Washington are reviewing the use of officers’ deadly force in the killing of a woman who tried to ram her car through a White House barrier, a shooting her family says was unjustified.

It’s the White House. Officers don’t know if the car is packed full of explosives or not. It is very sad for the family of the driver who was obviously mentally ill, but the consequences were inevitable.

“We’re still very confused as a family why she’s not still alive,” Amy Carey-Jones said in New York late Friday after travelling to Washington to identify Miriam Carey’s body. “I really feel like it’s not justified, not justified.” Another sister, retired New York City police officer Valarie Carey, said there was “no need for a gun to be used when there was no gunfire coming from the vehicle.”

Again the possibility of explosives.

After Carey rammed the barricades at the White House, police chased her down Constitution Avenue to the Capitol, where she was shot. At one point near the Capitol, police say, she stopped her car abruptly, drove over a median strip and put the vehicle into reverse and refused to stop. She was then shot.

Carey’s daughter escaped serious injury and was taken into protective custody.

It is possible the daughter may have died if Carey wasn’t stopped/killed.

The Herald reports:

The Law Commission has released a raft of proposals as part of the first full review of burial and cremation laws for almost 50 years. They include stricter controls on funeral directors, allowing private firms to run cemeteries and letting the bereaved bury loved ones on family land.

The latter proposal was aimed mainly at those with a farm or similar who could demonstrate it would stay in the family for generations, lead commissioner Dr Wayne Mapp said.

“A national standard would set out minimum standards you would expect when a person was buried,” Dr Mapp said.

“My personal preference is there to be a separate title for an area of land [for burial], but I can understand it might be sufficient for it to be noted on the title of the land.”

Funeral Directors Association president Eion McKinnon supported the shake-up, saying many of the current laws were “archaic”.

 Mark Blackham, founder of the Natural Burials funeral service, backed the possibility of change.

“It means all manner of people, in all manner of places, would be able to set up their own cemeteries. Our surveys have shown that around about a third of New Zealanders would do [natural burials] if it was available.”

Sounds a good proposed change to me.

Wellington City Council was concerned about permitting burials on private land, highlighting issues around maintenance and accountability.

“There has to be strict controls in place,” a spokesman said. “There’s a terrifying possibility of people just being able to … dig a hole and put granny in it and put some flowers in it. It raises all sorts of obvious questions about procedure.”

Silly scaremongering. Councils like monopolies.

Mind you my personal preference is to be buried in the Bolton Cemetery in Wellington. Just need to get it re-opened!

John Armstrong writes:

Not wanting to compromise the bank’s independence, Key had to accept the bank’s right to write the restrictions in its own terms.

Not so Labour. Cunliffe made vague noises about not interfering with the bank’s independence. But he intimated a Labour government would effectively instruct the bank to have regard for first-home buyers by writing that requirement into the policy targets agreement that a new government signs with the bank soon after taking office.

Cunliffe’s stance reflects his intention to give Labour a more bolshie image. He is exploiting the fact that Opposition parties can promise more than governments can. And he knows interest rates are likely to rise before the election.

But Cunliffe has to be careful. With Labour also committed to making the Reserve Bank take heed of exchange rate fluctuations, Cunliffe has to avoid leaving the impression that Labour’s answer to every economic problem is to fiddle with the Reserve Bank’s mandate – and thereby neutering the institution in the process.

I think it is clear the Reserve Bank will cease to be an independent entity under Labour. It will be back to the 70s.

The Herald reported:

Making the movie trilogy The Hobbit has cost more than half a billion dollars so far, double the amount spent on the three movies in the “The Lord of the Rings” series.

That figure includes the major 266 days of filming with actors that was completed last year, although it doesn’t include an additional two months or so of “pick-up” shoots done this year. There will likely also be additional post-production costs as the next two movies are completed.

Through March 31, production had cost NZ$676 million New Zealand dollars, according to financial documents filed Friday.

Are Labour still vowing to reverse the law change that helped keep The Hobbit in New Zealand?

I can’t wait for The Desolation of Smaug in December.

Hamish Rutherford (a former business journalist) writes at Stuff:

With co-leader and economic spokesman Russel Norman overseas this week, it fell on the shoulders of Green Party energy spokesman Gareth Hughes to reveal what he sees as the Government’s latest skulduggery.

With “the stroke of a pen” Solid Energy has been privatised, Hughes said, and not to mums and dads, but to foreign banks.

But what has really happened:

Hughes based his claim on a Beehive announcement that banks which lent hundreds of millions to Solid Energy were converting $75m of loans into “non-voting redeemable preference shares” as part of a rescue deal.

Suddenly at least 14 per cent of the company was owned by four Australian banks, Hughes reasoned, putting “privileged, powerful banking interests ahead of New Zealanders”.

For a start this overlooked that a New Zealand building society, TSB, also loaned Solid Energy tens of millions of dollars and was facing the prospect of losses, a detail made public months ago.

That aside, even though the banks are technically acquiring equity in Solid Energy, the lack of insight as to who was on the receiving end of the deal was striking.

Since revealing the scale of Solid Energy’s problems in February, with debt spiralling to near $400m, Finance Minister Bill English has promised those who funded its ill-fated expansion would not get off scot-free.

The negotiations dragged on for months, and now we know why.

The Government is about to mete out the kind of treatment the Greens seem to wish they could hand out to big business, and the banks are signing up only because the alternative is writing off the debt entirely.

Yes, the Crown is injecting $25m cash into Solid Energy, but for every dollar it is putting up, the lenders face losing three.

The banks are not getting any sort of reward or return. They are in fact taking a big hit.

What do the banks get in return? Shares which will never be worth more than the original amount – Solid Energy can buy the stock back at any time at face value.

It is unclear whether Solid Energy has any motivation to buy the stock back, ever, but certainly it won’t do so before it pays off all or most of the rest of the hundreds of millions of dollars of debt it still carries.

Even if coal prices recover, that will take years. During that period the value of the equity will evaporate through inflation and the lost opportunity to earn interest.

Worst of all (for the banks) is that although English has signed off on fresh loans worth at least $100m, in return he takes security over all of Solid Energy’s assets.

Looks like a very good commercial negotiation from the Government, doing its best to protect taxpayers. As I said, the real shame is that Solid Energy wasn’tt sold off years ago. The next time someone claims the Government must own these commercial companies, think of Solid Energy.

In terms of repayment, the banks’ “equity” stands somewhere near the contractor who cleans the windows at company headquarters.

If the Green Party really believes that kind of ownership is a kind worth buying, then heaven help the taxpayer when it gets near the purse strings of the Treasury.

Indeed.