The editorial of USA Today is a good read:

The arrival of charter schools in any city usually starts a fight.

Critics — whether district superintendents or teachers’ unions or school boards or a traveling band of academic doubters — snipe at the newcomers, arguing that they’re siphoning students and money from traditional public schools.

But as evidence from the 20-year-old charter experiment mounts, the snipers are in need of a new argument. There’s little doubt left that top-performing charters have introduced new educational models that have already achieved startling results in even the most difficult circumstances.

Worth remembering that the biggest supporters of charter schools in the United States are African-Americans.

That doesn’t mean all charters are automatically good. They’re not. But it’s indisputable that the good ones — most prominently, KIPP — are onto something. The non-profit company, which now has 125 schools, operates on a model that demands much more of students, parents and teachers than the typical school does. School days are longer, sometimes including Saturday classes. Homework burdens are higher, typically two hours a night. Grading is tougher. Expectations are high, as is the quality of teachers and principals, and so are the results.

KIPP’s eighth-grade graduates go to college at twice the national rate for low-income students, according to its own tracking. After three years, scores on math tests rise as if students had four years of schooling, according to an independent study.

The question isn’t whether such successful models should be replicated, but how best to do it.

That’s where the debate should be in New Zealand. Not mindless ideological opposition to charter schools – but how do we get the best model possible for charter schools.

A rigorous new study of KIPP, the nation’s best known and most scrutinized charter network, blew away criticism that has fueled the charter fight. Critics have long contended that KIPP’s success with minority and low-income children is less about its methods than about skimming the best students with the most motivated parents. Not so, the five-year study of 43 KIPP middle schools concluded.

Instead, Mathematica Policy Research found that KIPP schools improved student achievement in math, reading, science and social studies. Researchers compared students who had won lotteries to enter KIPP schools against students in the lotteries who lost out. Thus, students and their parents were equally motivated. Even so, the KIPP students did better.

And what did that report conclude:

• Math: Three years after enrollment, the estimated impact of KIPP on math achievement is equivalent to moving a student from the 44th to the 58th percentile of the school district’s distribution. This represents 11 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in three years without KIPP.
• Reading: Three years after enrollment, the estimated impact in reading is equivalent to moving a student from the 46th to the 55th percentile, representing 8 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in three years without KIPP. 
• Science: Three to four years after enrollment, the estimated impact in science is equivalent to moving a student from the 36th to the 49th percentile, representing 14 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in that time without KIPP
• Social Studies: Three to four years after enrollment, the estimated impact in social studies is equivalent to moving a student from the 39th to the 49th percentile, representing 11 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in that time without KIPP.

Those results are astonishing.

Labour will try and close down charter schools if they win the election. Their biggest fear is that they will prove popular and successful if allowed to survive. It is vital for those kids who are not achieving at school they they get the opportunities that good charter schools can provide.

The Political Marketing Group asked me to do an article for their March newsletter. There might be some wider interest in it, so I thought I would blog it here also:

Barack Obama was re-elected for a number of reasons including the quality of the candidates, their policies and their records. But one of the reasons was also the quality of their campaigns, and the Obama’s campaign use of big data to bring a new level of sophistication to political marketing.

The days of campaigns being about getting the best coverage on the 6 pm news every night are well and truly over. By 6 pm, many people already know how the campaign has gone for candidates. The buzz on Twitter has often made it clear how the day’s happenings will be reported.

The Obama campaign used data to divide voters into three categories. Those who were not worth pursuing who were left alone, those who were moderate supporters who might donate if asked and those who were strong supporters who might become activists.

They used research to survey millions of voters so they could sort them into the three categories. The research was a mixture of postal surveys, phoning and visiting. This data was supplemented by social media data and advertising.

An interactive Facebook video would depict to individuals how the President’s policies would help them and their friends. But the real purpose of the video was to get their permission to siphon off data about all their friends so they could be matched to their state voting records.

Having collected so much data on voters, the Obama campaign then used it to personalise online advertisements and messages. Their data told them the most appealing celebrity for middle-aged women on the East Coast was Sarah-Jessica Parker so they used her to appeal for their votes.

Having done badly in 2010 due to low turnout, Obama’s campaign focused on identifying those who voted for him in 2008 and ensuring they voted again. Every voter in the country was assigned two scores. One being their likelihood to vote and one being the probability they would vote for Obama. They then calculated for each individual precinct who were the likely people who voted Obama in 2008 and worked on making sure they voted in 2012.

They also used data to test their messages. Up to ten different varieties of an e-mail solicitation would be sent out to a test group. The communication that achieved the highest response or donation rate was then used for the entire population. Almost every single message and communication was tested scientifically. It didn’t matter so much what the creative director though of the communication. What mattered was measuring what impact it had.

Advertising has been the traditional channel for persuasion in political campaigns.  It still remains an important element, especially as they can impact media coverage also. But the lessons from the 2012 United States presidential campaign are that advertising alone is most definitely no longer enough. Data, social media and electronic communications are the weapons now used in a 21st century campaign, and political parties and candidates that fail to use them will struggle to achieve the result they want.

Judith Collins has announced:

• Creating a new civil enforcement regime that includes setting up or appointing an approved agency as the first port of call for complaints.
• Allowing people to take serious complaints to the District Court, which will be able to issue sanctions such as take-down orders and cease-and-desist notices.
• Making it an offence to send messages and post material online that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false, punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
• Creating a new offence of incitement to commit suicide, even in situations when a person does not attempt to take their own life, punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment.
• Amending the Harassment, Privacy and Human Rights Acts to ensure they are up-to-date for digital communications. In some cases, existing laws were written before cell phones, instant messaging devices and social networking websites became common communication channels.

This is mainly based on the Law Commission report, but with a key difference.

The Commission recommended a specialist Communications Tribunal, instead of the District Court. I think it is better to have it as part of the District Court, as there is less concern about scope creep.

I have no issue with the proposed law changes above, however one area remains a concern:

The FAQ says: The Government proposes adopting the 10 statutory principles recommended by the Law Commission, which are based on criminal and civil law and regulatory rules.

This is the area which concerns me the most. The principles are:

1. A communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
2. A communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
3. A communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position.
4. A communication should not be indecent or obscene.
5. A communication should not be part of a pattern of conduct that constitutes harassment.
6. A communication should not make a false allegation.
7. A communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
8. A communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to a person with the intention of causing that person harm.
9. A communication should not incite or encourage another person to commit suicide.
10. A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

I blogged last year on a legal analysis of the principles, and I think some are too wide-reaching.

I would encourage people to read the proposed law when it is introduced, and make sure they submit to select committee.

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports on what Government agencies said on the minimum wage. The summary is:

• Treasury – $13.50
• Cabinet decision – $13.75
• Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment – $13.80
• Ministry of Social Development – $13.80
• Ministry of Women’s Affairs – $13.80
•  Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs – $15.00
• Te Puni Kokiri – $16.00

Te Puni Kokiri must think we need more unemployed people!

A guest post by Green Party MP Kevin Hague:

One of the striking things about the submissions  – both written and oral – received against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was the very high degree of support that now exists for acknowledging and extending rights to same-sex couples through the mechanism of civil unions. This stands in stark contrast to the positions many of these same people took when the Civil Unions Bill itself was being debated.

There’s more: the now popular Civil Union Act passed its Third Reading by only 65-55, and just a couple of days before, a 3News poll found 46% of people in support, while 45% opposed.

In fact what all this shows is that Civil Unions followed the same path as Homosexual Law Reform and protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Certainly there is a group of people whose opposition to these measures is based on dogma of some sort, usually a religious one. These folk try to live their lives according to a particular code based on a set of rules (and believe that everybody else should also, regardless of belief). But probably the larger group of opponents is one whose opposition is motivated by fear: either of a general sort or of specific undesirable outcomes should the law reform succeed.

Opposition based on fear has always been temporary. Before each of these previous reforms a significant proportion of the population were led to believe that it would tear the fabric of our society in some awful way. But, surprise, surprise, the sky did not fall. And now it is only a very small group who believe gay sex should be illegal, who believe it should be legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or who believe same-sex couples should not be able to have their relationships acknowledged and protected.

Perhaps unsurprisingly I am writing about this because, once again, the same dynamics are at work in the opposition to marriage equality. There is a group of people, almost exclusively from particular religious faiths, who strongly and sincerely believe that marriage is fundamentally an institution that should be defined by their own particular dogma. They usually say the State has no right to determine who can marry, and seem oblivious even to other religious faiths whose dogma supports marriage equality. They are fundamentally theocrats and oppose pluralism, one of the basic ideas of modern society. Their position does not seem to be one that can be influenced by logic or evidence.

But the larger group of opponents is, as usual, one motivated by fear. Typically they have been encouraged to hold these fears by those who know better and who are exploiting them. Most of the ‘arguments’ made against marriage equality, including most of the amendments proposed to the Bill have been based on imaginary fears:

• No celebrant will be forced to solemnise a marriage against their will. The law states that no celebrant is obliged to marry a particular couple. This has been the law since 1955 and the “right to refuse” has never been denied.
• No church will be forced to use its religious space for same-sex weddings if it does not approve of them, or do anything at all differently.
• Nobody will be forced to say anything different, or not to express their beliefs. In fact the Bill will repeal s.56, which, while never used, made it an offence to deny the validity of a legally-conducted marriage. Despite the histrionics of some, nobody will be sent to prison for their beliefs.
• The ethical and legal obligations for teachers will not change in any way. There are professional requirements that influence how teachers can and cannot express their personal views to students. The Bill does not change these.
• Children will not be “denied the right to their biological mother and father”. Married same-sex couples being able to adopt will almost exclusively affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples (there are thousands, by the way) who currently have less security because of the relatively precarious legal status of their parents. The number of children made available for “stranger adoption” each year (who by definition are not being raised by their biological parents) is tiny. This Bill will have the effect that when the biological parents of a child choose adoptive parents, married same-sex couples can also be considered.

What will actually happen once this Bill passes is that some same-sex couples will choose to get married. Some of those will do so in churches that welcome them. Others will find independent celebrants they like, and who like them. People will be happier. And in time, as has happened everywhere else in the world where this reform has already occurred, most New Zealanders who currently oppose marriage equality will realise that their fears were groundless, and join the majority who already believe that, well, love is love.

What I found interesting that the when the Civil Unions Bill was being passed, public opinion was so evenly divided. Yet less than a decade later there is almost no opposition to civil unions, and in fact opponents of same sex marriage cite civil unions as so good, that there is no need to change the marriage law.

I’ll make a prediction. That by 2020, fewer than 20% of New Zealanders will be saying that they are opposed to same sex marriages being legal.

The Press reports:

Christchurch bars should have a one-way door policy after 1am, with all bars closing by 3am, police say, a day after the city recorded a surge in street-related crime and disorder.

The Christchurch City Council is working on a draft local alcohol policy (LAP) for Christchurch – a provision of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

A preliminary policy was discussed by the planning committee yesterday, with deputations made by the police, medical officer of health, Health Promotion Agency, Hospitality New Zealand, District Licensing Agency, Foodstuffs New Zealand and Progressive Enterprises.

Through the LAP, the council can regulate certain aspects of liquor licensing such as opening hours for licensed premises, controlling the location of licensed premises and making re-entry restrictions to bars early in the morning.

Canterbury district commander, Superintendent Gary Knowles, told the council yesterday the central-city bars should have a one-way door policy after 1am and all bars should shut by 3am.

1 am is way way too early. Hell many people only head into town around midnight.

One way policies may also have unintended consequences. Rather than walk around town and sober up a bit, you’ll stay drinking at the bar you are already at.

Also if a group has split up, it means they can’t reunite.

Patrick Smellie does some excellent analysis of Tiwai Point:

A UBS research report issued in November 2011, just after Rio put its New Zealand and Australian smelters up for sale as Pacific Aluminium, suggests Tiwai Pt makes metal at around US$1900 per tonne, against US$1700 at Tomago – the lowest cost of the Australian smelters being sold – and US$1400 in Canada.

Since 2007, when Meridian Energy and Rio inked the now disputed contract for up to 18 years’ electricity supply to Tiwai Point from 2013, the price of aluminium has tanked. It was above US$3000 per tonne that year, plunged to below US$1300 a tonne in 2009, and is close to US$1900 a tonne today.

Global commodity prices are highly variable. That risk should be borne by the private sector, not the Government.

His only question will be whether the Tiwai Pt smelter is worth more open than closed. In the absence of buyers, closure grows as an option, despite hundreds of millions of dollars of site remediation costs that a closure would trigger.

In other words, no matter how hard Meridian Energy tries to do a new deal with the smelter, it’s time to get ready to kiss it goodbye. After 42 years, it’s served New Zealand well enough, raking in billions of dollars in foreign exchange earnings, paying a lot of tax in its many profitable years, and creating high-paying jobs in one of our more remote regional economies.

But the aluminium industry is changing. Lower cost, larger scale plant is being built, especially in China, and the integrated “mining-to-metal” business model is looking outdated.

Using cheap New Zealand electricity to turn Australian bauxite into high-grade metal is not the money-spinner it once was, all the more so because New Zealand itself can probably use the energy from Manapouri for higher-value activities. Meridian, for example, expects to be more profitable if the smelter closes because it will be free to market its excess power to higher-paying customers.

A sunset industry maybe?

And as to the supposed pressure on the MightyRiverPower float?

Even nine years ago, when the smelter was still owned by Comalco, the company was saying if smelter power was “freed up at Lake Manapouri, a reduction in coal-fired generation at Huntly would remove any benefit of extra power from the national grid.”

That logic is even stronger today. Genesis Energy is desperate to be rid of Huntly, while Contact Energy talks openly of closing one or both the company’s combined cycle gas generation plants at Otahuhu and Stratford. Transpower says it could upgrade the national grid to get smelter load out of Southland “in three summers”.

In other words, Rio has pushed Meridian and the government as hard as it can. It has contractual obligations that would see an orderly closure over the next five-and-a-half years. That would be a blow, but not an unmanageable one for Southland or New Zealand.

Very interesting and useful.

Also Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Labour won’t say whether it would step in to save the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter if successful at the next election.

Yet their major funder wants them to:

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union called on the Government to consider other ways it could help make the smelter viable in the long term.

The question for Rio Tinto is whether they think they will find a buyer. Much more profitable to sell it than close it.

I was fascinated that a former GCSB Director went on Campbell Live (a good scoop for them) and criticised the selection process of Ian Fletcher.

He seemed very miffed that Fletcher had no military background and that someone he had known for 25 years was not interviewed. I wonder if that person was the former Associate Director who has now left the GCSB for his actions in the Kim Dotcom saga?

The review of the GCSB by Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge should be released soon, and I suspect it will be very scathing (in a diplomatically worded way) of the CGSB processes, and As Sir Bruce Ferguson was Director from 2006 to 2011, he could feel slighted.  Time will tell.

My view is the same as yesterday that it would have been preferable for the PM not to have called Ian Fletcher to ask him if he was interested in applying. But to be fair to the PM, it has been revealed that he did not solely phone Fletcher, but also another person to see if they were interested. The other person was not available.

The better course of action would have been to pass on the contact details of both people to the State Services Commissioner.

The Dom Post editorial today says:

There is nothing wrong with John Key calling an old mate’s brother and telling him there’s a public service vacancy he might be interested in applying for.

There is everything wrong with the prime minister misleading the public about his involvement in the appointment of that old friend’s brother, Ian Fletcher, as head of the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Mr Key’s fondness for picking up the phone and talking directly to those at the coalface is a trait he shares with other go-getters who have become prime ministers. However, his predecessors all recognised the importance of maintaining public confidence in government.

Mr Key has now failed to do so on at least two occasions – first by advocating on behalf of one of the potential builders of a new convention centre in Auckland and now by being less than candid about his role in Mr Fletcher’s appointment.

Again it would have been better to have had the full details put out there at the beginning.

David Shearer was ridiculed for forgetting his foreign bank account for four years. While it is more believable to forget about a phone call, it means that politically the focus shifts from Shearer’s blunder to Key’s actions.

A fascinating article on Alter Net by Alyssa Goldstein:

In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston. His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years. Though Mattock’s community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wife’s suffering in mind when they decided to shun him. The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men. A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her. …

The idea that men are naturally more interested in sex than women is ubiquitous that it’s difficult to imagine that people ever believed differently. And yet for most of Western history, from ancient Greece to beginning of the nineteenth century, women were assumed to be the sex-crazed porn fiends of their day. In one ancient Greek myth, Zeus and Hera argue about whether men or women enjoy sex more. They ask the prophet Tiresias, whom Hera had once transformed into a woman, to settle the debate. He answers, “if sexual pleasure were divided into ten parts, only one part would go to the man, and and nine parts to the woman.”

Stuff reports:

A Gisborne man was justifiably fired after his boss saw Facebook pictures of him at a waka ama championship when he was meant to be at home sick, a court has found.

Bruce Taiapa has lost an appeal to try and overturn an Employment Relations Authority ruling that his employer, the training institute Turanga Ararau, was within its rights to sack him in July 2011 because he misused his sick leave.

Employment Court chief judge Colgan backed up the authority’s ruling in a decision released yesterday.

In March 2011, Taiapa, 59, asked to take a week’s leave without pay so he could attend the waka ama championships in Rotorua. He was granted only three days off because no-one was available to cover his work.

The next Monday, he called in sick, saying he had a damaged calf muscle.

Two days later, his boss saw on Facebook a picture of him at the championships. Taiapa was smiling and giving the thumbs-up.

That is beyond stupid – both the calling a sick when you are not, but competing in waka champs and being photographed there.

Once he returned to Gisborne, Taiapa got a doctor’s certificate stating that he had been unfit to work for the past week. He returned to work three days later.

This is one of the reasons I am skeptical of the numbers on the sickness benefit. It is all too easy to get a certificate.

After a series of discussions, manager Sharon Maynard dismissed Taiapa for misusing his sick leave and misleading his employer. Maynard said she had lost trust and confidence in Taiapa.

Taiapa’s lawyers argued Turanga Ararau should not be able to dictate where Taiapa recuperated from his illness.

I don’t think taking part in a waka championship is recuperation!

Institute of IT Professionals – ICT-Connect from IITP on Vimeo.

The Institute of IT Professionals have done this short video about their ICT-Connect in-school programme which gets passionate IT professionals to talk in schools to get kids excited about a career in IT.

The programme is financially supported by over 40 organisations, including companies like Datacom, Orion Healthcare and Potentia as well as other orgs such as InternetNZ, SoftwareNZ and the Health IT Cluster.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says it will be “bleak” for Canterbury residents who chose not to take up the Government’s buy-out offer for land in the red zone.

He said the Government would not support red zone infrastructure – water, sewerage, electricity and roading.

“It will be quite a bleak environment to be living in. But in the end you can’t force people to take the offer, it’s voluntary.”

He said 6500 people have either accepted and settled, or are about to settle. Only 213 have not.

So that is a 97% acceptance rate.

Some Christchurch residents with land in the red zone are calling in the Human Rights Commission.

I really don’t think there is a human right to require me (and other taxpayers) to purchase undeveloped or uninsured land that has been damaged in an earthquake.

The SMH reports at Stuff:

Samoa Air has become the world’s first airline to implement “pay as you weigh” flights, meaning overweight passengers pay more for their seats.

“This is the fairest way of travelling,” chief executive of Samoa Air, Chris Langton, told ABC Radio. “There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything – it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo.”

Like many Pacific island nations, Samoa has a serious obesity problem and is often included in the top 10 countries for obesity levels. As such, Mr Langton believes his airline’s new payment policy will also help promote health and obesity awareness.

“When you get into the Pacific, standard weight is substantially higher [than south-east Asia],” he said. “That’s a health issue in some areas. [This payment system] has raised the awareness of weight.”

Under the new system, Samoa Air passengers must type in their weight and the weight of their baggage into the online booking section of the airline’s website. The rates vary depending on the distance flown: from $1 per kilogram on the airline’s shortest domestic route to about $4.16 per kilogram for travel between Samoa and American Samoa. Passengers are then weighed again on scales at the airport, to check that they weren’t fibbing online.

I think flight charges should be user pays, so this is a step in the right direction. However a simple per kg charge may be unfair.

Most costs are per seat, and will be incurred whether or not everyone weighs 70 kgs or 100 kgs. So there should be a per seat cost, but as greater weight means more fuel burnt, you’d have a per kg charge on top of that.

It is unfair that someone who weighs 70 kgs and has a 30 kg bag has to pay more than someone who weighs 100 kgs and has a 20 kg bag.

Mr Langton said he believed it to be a system of the future, and added that “the standard width and pitch of seats are changing as people are getting a bit bigger, wider and taller than they were 40 to 50 years ago”.

Maybe also have different size seats, with higher charges for wider seats? Of course sort of have that already with premium economy.

The Herald reports:

The Geographic Board is publicly consulting on proposals to assign official alternative names to the two main islands – Te Ika a Maui for the North and Te Waipounamu for the South. The first refers to demi-god Maui’s act of fishing up the North Island while the second is a reference to that island’s greenstone.

I’ve got no problem with official alternative names, so long as they are alternatives.

North Island and South Island are very boring, but they are also very easy to remember and use!

Geographic Board suggests:
North Island – Te Ika a Maui
South Island – Te Waipounamu
Maori have known the islands as:
Alternative place names for Te Waipounamu: Te Waka a Maui, for Te Ika a Maui: Aotearoa
Other names the North Island has been known as: 
New Ulster
Other names the South Island has been known as: 
New Munster, Middle Island

I quite like the idea of New Ulster and New Munster 🙂

The Herald reports:

Lawyer and social policy expert Michael Bott said the plan showed the Government’s hatred towards those who were passionate about the environment.

That’s very strong language from Mr Bott, who is described as a social policy expert. I’m not sure how you get such a title, but they have missed out a more relevant title.

Mr Bott was of course the Labour Party candidate for Wairarapa. A fact that should have been disclosed.

This continual non disclosure on the part of media really annoys me, because it happens so consistently and in just one direction.

I honestly can not recall the last time I saw a National Party candidate, office holder or even activist quoted in the media without reference to their party involvement. While Labour Party people pop up in various guises so often, I have lost count.

Either the Herald were unaware Mr Bott was a Labour Party candidate, or they thought the public don’t need to know that this “social policy expert” who says the Government hates people who are passionate about the environment stood for Labour at the last election.

I’m not sure what answer is worse – that they didn’t know, or that they did no and decided not to say.

The Greens have been circulating this image. There are a number of issues with it.

First of all, it is not a photo of a Kiwi student. It is a generic photo you can find here, here, here and here. I suspect is comes from a photo library, and someone should ask the Greens if they paid for the photo, or just swiped  it off the Internet?

But even worse for the Greens, is that almost every single fact is wrong.

The minimum wage last week was $13.50 (not $13.75). For a 40 hour week that is $540 a week, which is $28,080 for 52 weeks. That makes them tax code ME SL.

The IRD calculator states that last week their PAYE was $74.83, student loan deduction $17.30 and KiwiSaver $10.80. That is a net pay of $437.07 – not $455.

So they are already out by $17 a week.

Now also be aware that they are lying when they state Sandy has her wage cut from $13.75 to $11.00. It is illegal for the new starting off wage to be applied to an existing job.

If they are claiming she was unemployed last week, then she was on $153 a week, not $445 or $437. And she might not have her job if it were not for the ability of an employer to offer her a starting off wage.

But even if we put this to one side, their sums are still further wrong. If her gross wage did drop from $540 to $440 a week, then her student loan repayments also drop – from $17.30 a week to $8.76 a week (even at the 12% rate). So rather than have repayments increase by $5, they drop by around $9.

Also they have not taken into account the wage difference with KiwiSaver. The deduction at 2% was $10.80 and at 3% on a lower wage is $13.20 – a change of $2.40, not $4.00.

So in summary, the Greens:

1. Misrepresented the minimum wage change
2. Inaccurately stated the minimum wage last week was $13.75
3. Miscalculated the take home pay last week (they were wrong at $13.50 and $13.75)
4. Miscalculated the change in student loan repayments
5. Miscalculated the change in Kiwisaver deductions

This is pretty gross incompetence for a political party with you know staff and MPs. There is nothing difficult about going to the IRD website and using their calculator. Their advertisement is false and misleading and they should withdraw it until corrected.

UPDATE: It gets even worse for the Greens. A commenter has pointed out the starting out wage only comes in as an option on 1 May 2013. So it is a total fail. A fake 18 year old girl, fake calculations and fake dates.

A better rival graphic from Act on Campus:

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Spy boss Ian Fletcher was not short-listed for the top job at the Government’s foreign spy agency – but applied after a phone call from Prime Minister John Key.

The short list – drawn up by a recruitment company – was rejected by State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie. …

Mr Rennie confirmed yesterday that he had rejected the short list. Mr Key said that after he and Mr Rennie “agreed to look elsewhere,” Mr Key phoned Mr Fletcher, who was working in Australia.

“[Mr Key] said that if he was interested in the position of director, GCSB, he would need to go through a process and should call Maarten Wevers in the first instance,” the statement from Mr Key said. Sir Maarten was head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet at the time.

Mr Fletcher was the only candidate interviewed by a panel made up of Sir Maarten, defence secretary John McKinnon and deputy state services commissioner Helene Quilter.

Mr Rennie said the “panel was unanimous . . . that Mr Fletcher was suitable for appointment”.

I think it is unfortunate the Prime Minister phoned Ian Fletcher to suggest he applies. While he would not have got the job if he wasn’t qualified, a phone call from the PM soliciting the application would carry weight with the State Services Commission.

I think Ministers should generally be very wary of suggesting people for state sector roles. David Parker, as Environment Minister,  endorsed Clare Curran for a role with the Environment Ministry, which was heavily scrutinised.

Now Fletcher has no political connections, but I think the same principle applies. Ministers are best to avoid involvement outside their formal roles.

A former diplomat, Mr Fletcher was chief executive officer of Queensland’s Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation when he was appointed. A high-flier in the British civil service, he had also worked for the European Commission and the United Nations.

Mr Key says he and Mr Fletcher met a “couple of times” when Mr Fletcher was in Queensland and no more than a “handful” of occasions between the mid-2000s and his GCSB appointment.

Mr Key disclosed the links to Mr Rennie during the appointment process.

The Economist looks at the history and pitfalls of an FTT:

A group of 11 European Union member states, among them France, Germany and Italy, wants to impose a 0.1% tax on equity and debt transactions, and a 0.01% charge on derivatives transactions. These countries are pressing ahead on their own because other EU members, including financial hubs like Britain and Luxembourg, are opposed. …

The rates proposed sound negligible, but the tax would be imposed at each point in the transaction chain. A 0.1% rate therefore translates into something much bigger as securities move from seller to buyer via financial intermediaries. Even the headline rates are less innocuous than they look. A 0.1% charge on repo transactions, a way for banks to finance themselves overnight, turns into a 25% charge over the course of a working year. A 0.01% tax on a derivative trade sounds small, but is a hefty increase in costs given the large notional amounts involved—up to 18 times more than current costs in the most liquid markets, according to one calculation.

And how have they worked in practice?

After Sweden levied an FTT in the 1980s, 60% of trading volume in the most actively traded share classes moved to London; the tax was repealed in 1991.

It will send capital fleeing offshore.

Some interesting comments were made yesterday on the Tiwai Point thread, with people disagreeing with me that the Government should not be involved:

Jack5 said:

In a detailed post by “Tempest” in Kiwiblog yesterday, is was spelled out that the new infrastructure required to put Manpouri’s electricity on the NZ market would cost $2 billion and would take eight to ten years to complete.

DPF thinks the SOE board should negotiate this contract. This is about more than some electricity price subsidy. How would Meridian raise $2 billion to bring Manapouri electricity north with a wait of six to eight years before it received any revenue from this spending?

There’s a better case for the Government negotiating here than there was for its role in helping the film industry. And there were film-industry tax subsidies (yes, special industry tax breaks are subsidies), as well as labour rules involved.

The aluminium industry is in upheaval round the world thanks to a dive in demand and prices, and rising competition from China. Australia and New Zealand have a special difficulty because of the two countries well overvalued currencies.

In France the French Government is working with Rio Tinto and local community representatives and unions to try to find a buyer for Rio Tinto’s aluminium smelter at Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne.

Finding a buyer for Bluff, might be harder, however. In Australia, Norsk Hydro announced 12 months ago it was closing its aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri. Alcoa’s smelter in Victoria is staying open for two years, thanks to a state-federal subsidy.

If Australia is bailing out its smelters, NZ will have to follow or lose a billion a year in foreign currency earnings. It would also have to raise $2 billion for new infrastructure, and spend heaps on social support in Southland (just as it props up farmers in droughts and kiwifruit farmers in disease outbreaks).

Too much is at stake with the smelter to leave it to a State-appointed board.

However, that is where it is. Stuff reports:

Mining giant Rio Tinto has walked away from talks with the Government over the future of Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, Prime Minister John Key has confirmed this morning.

Key said Rio had withdrawn after nine months of negotiations over possible taxpayer subsidies and had now resumed discussions with state-owned power company Meridian.

It was revealed last week the Government had been negotiating with Rio Tinto over the smelter after contract negotiations between subsidiary Pacific Aluminium and Meridian effectively stalled.

The Government had made it clear there would be no long-term support, but agreed to look at short term bridging assistance because of the thousands of jobs at stake, and to facilitate a smoother transition should Tiwai Point close, Key told TV3’s Firstline.

“We made the call that we would look to help bridge a small amount of that gap for a short period of time.

“They came back over the weekend and said ‘no, we are rejecting the Government’s intervention; we will go back and talk to Meridian’. So that’s what they are doing now.”

He acknowledged ultimately that might mean Tiwai Point closed.

Just as Solid Energy suffered due to low global coal prices, Tiwai Point suffers from low global aluminum prices. There is a limited amount one can do locally in the face of global price changes.

This reinforces to me why the state shouldn’t be in commercially risky enterprises. Why should I as a taxpayer be carrying some of the risk around global aluminium prices? If Tiwai Point closes, it will reduce the value of the energy SOEs.

Rio Tinto apparently decided to walk away after the Government made it clear it would not subsidise the deal long-term.

Key confirmed this morning the Government had no interest in that.

Good.

The NZ Centre for Public Law at Vic Uni has a series of debates on constitutional issues. They run for the next five Mondays at 6.30 pm. The details are:

1. 8 April, Hunter Council Chamber – “What’s the problem?”. Professor Bruce Harris, Moana Jackson, Dame Claudia Orange, Dr Matthew Palmer – about the Constitutional Review, its process, its political genesis.
2. 15 April, Hunter Council Chamber – “Reforming our democratic institutions”. Dr Maria Bargh, Colin James, Professor Elizabeth McLeay, Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC – term and size of Parliament, size and number of electorates, Maori electoral representation.
3. 22 April, Te Herenga Waka Marae – “Maori aspirations for constitutional change”. Tai Ahu, Dr Rawinia Higgins, Veronica Tawhai, Valmaine Toki – status of the Treaty, alternative models of Māori-Crown relationships, development of a kaupapa Māori or tikanga-based constitution.
4. 29 April, Hunter Council Chamber – “Human rights in the constitution”. Professor Andrew Geddis, Jack Hodder QC, Stephen Whittington, Professor Margaret Wilson – Should the Bill of Rights be supreme law in a written constitution? If so, what rights should be included or excluded?
5. 6 May, Hunter Council Chamber – “Time to be a Republic?. Jim Bolger, Professor Janet McLean, Michael Mabbitt. Is it time to become a republic? If not, will it ever be? What would that involve, and what will be the major issues confronting us if and when we do so?

I plan to attend at least three of the debates. I assume they will allow interactions from the floor? They will be broadcast of Radio NZ also.

Radio NZ reports:

Budgeting services and opposition parties say struggling workers will be hit hard by increased costs that came into effect on 1 April.

Minimum KiwiSaver contributions rose from 2% to 3% …

The Labour and Green parties say some workers already struggling financially may choose to opt out of KiwiSaver rather than make the higher payments.

Again, such hypocrisy. Labour not only bitterly complained about National dropping the minimum contribution from 4% to 2%, they also have a policy of making KiwiSaver compulsory so struggling workers get no choice about contributing!

Would be nice if the media reported their policies, not just their releases!

Pretty good news in the 2012 crime stats, just released:

• Homicides down 18.1%
• Assaults rate down 3.4%
• Sexual assaults up 1.3%
• Robberies down 10.1%
• Burglaries down 11.1%
• Theft down 11.8%

The overall number of crimes is down 7.4% and the crime rate is down 8.0%. Note however the overall rate is a fairly un-useful figure as it treats all crimes as equal magnitude.

I’ve done some quick graphs showing the level of recorded offences and the crime rates for the major categories, since 1996. A variety of stories.

Thankfully not a large number of homicides, so changes may not be significant. But a nice trend down in the last three years.

Assaults and violent offences were definitely trending up until 2009, and have been reducing over the last three years.

Sadly sexual assaults is the one area that has not reduced. This may be due to greater reporting levels.

Thefts have been going down pretty constantly for the last 16 years.

Burglaries were pretty constant, but have also started to trend down.

Robberies really shot up around a decade ago, then started to reduce from 2006 and decrease more rapidly since 2008.

Again the overall rate is not that useful a number but still psychologically important to some. The overall crime rate dropped from 1996 to 2004, and then increased from 2004 to 2009. Since 2009 it has dropped pretty significantly. It is 18.9% lower than three years ago.