It was only last year that NZEI argued schools should ignore the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) requests regarding National Standards. They publicly advocated for an OIA exemption for National Standards data. I am pleased the Education Unions suddenly have a profound new respect for the OIA.
Mr Haig of the PPTA claims the support of Hon Richard Prebble in his assertion that jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be extended to Partnership Schools | Kura Hourua (PSKH) under the OIA and the Ombudsmen Act 1975 (OA).
Richard Prebble may be retired but fortunately he’s still very much around, so I thought I would ask him. Here is his response to Mr Haig.
“I introduced the first Freedom of Information Bill into Parliament so we could see what the Government was up to. I have never supported the right of the state to spy on private organisations or citizens.”
“While I am at it, I strongly support Partnership Schools. I’m not surprised Maori are welcoming the initiative since the state school system has failed them. The PPTA must also take some of the responsibility. Instead of opposing Partnership Schools, the PPTA should acknowledge that they are most unlikely to be worse than state schools have been for Maori and they are likely to be much better.”
Tom Haig was unwise to cite Richard Prebble to support his case, but the rest of Mr Haig’s arguments are no better.
The decision not to extend the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to PSKH is right both in principle and in practice.
The purpose of the OIA and the OA is to restrain the executive branch of government and other crown entities by providing access to “official” information and providing for an investigatory role over government administrative decisions. Both the OA and OIA were introduced because of the significant power the state can wield over the lives of citizens.
Partnership Schools | Kura Hourua are not subject to the OIA and OA because they are not part of government – they are non-governmental organisations.
Sponsors can be either non-profit or for profit organisations, incorporated or non-incorporated, and might be community or iwi organisations or charitable trusts. They may or may not get all their funding from government, but even if they do, that is not a principled reason for PSKH to be covered by the OIA and OA.
Over 5000 educational organisations receive full or partial funding from government but are not subject to the OIA and OA. Thousands of other organisations providing services to the government are fully or partially publically funded and are not subject to the OIA or OA. The reason is that they are non-governmental organisations.
Somewhat inconsistently, the Ombudsman made it clear to the Select Committee that they were not advocating extending their jurisdiction to the other 5000 educational organisations, only to PSKH.
In an unfortunate analogy, the Ombudsmen said PSKH were like private prisons. In a similar vein Mr Haig conflates compulsory education with compulsory attendance. Both are wrong.
PSKH are not similar to a private management contract of a prison. Prisons, be they public or under a private management contract, are uniquely coercive. Prisoners don’t get a choice of prison and cannot leave at will. Prisoners are there because of the coercive power of the state. That is why the OIA and OA apply and rightly so. But no one will be forced to attend a PSKH, nor teach at one, and all will be free to leave.
The Ombudsmen offered an example of a three year parental dispute with a state school as another argument for the OIA and OA to apply. On the face of it, three years seems a long time to come to a resolution when the education of a child is at stake. Mr Haig’s post outlines a state school dispute invoking the Human Rights Act 1993 (which applies to PSKH). The Ombudsman expressed a further concern over the potential improper use of the statutory power to expel, suspend and stand down a student.
The PSKH model offers significant powers to parents to protect them and their children.
Not only can parents receive meaningful information about their child, the contract provides for an independent review mechanism that every parent can access. This will apply to all disputes including disputes over the use of the power to expel, suspend or stand down a child.
The sponsor will be able to tailor the dispute resolution process to provide for a speedy, efficient and independent way of resolving the dispute that focuses on the particular educational needs of the child. This should provide for a better, more timely mechanism for dispute resolution than the general jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen.
The PSKH model has been designed to be transparent and more accountable.
Detailed reporting against specific, measurable academic , student engagement and other performance goals will be required as part of a PSKH’s contract with the Crown. They will have to publish annual audited accounts. Furthermore, any information held by the Ministry of Education, the Minister and the Authorisation Board will be subject to the OIA and OA, as these entities are part of government. In addition, the Secretary of Education can ask for any additional information over and above that required under the sponsorship contract. PSKH will be scrutinised by both the Education Review Office and the Authorisation Board who will apply a specific evaluation framework. And unlike state schools they can be closed quickly for non-performance.
PSKH have a significantly more rigorous and effective accountability model than state schools. That is why, on balance, the PSKH Working Group considered that subjecting PSKH to compliance obligations and costs under the OIA and OA over and above all their other obligations is unnecessary, would not advance the interests of children, parents or taxpayers and may detract from the vital educational mission of Partnership Schools | Kura Hourua.
NZ Post says its balance sheet will have to wear the $100 million in capital Kiwibank needs to meet its regulatory requirements and replace an ageing banking system.
Testifying before Parliament’s commerce committee today, chairman Sir Michael Cullen said the postal service operator had requested funding from the Government to meet the capital needs of its bank subsidiary, but hadn’t received a definitive answer yet.
The board was operating on the assumption that no further funds would be forthcoming, which is “not surprising in the current situation”, Cullen said.
That meant the state-owned enterprise would have to provide the additional Kiwibank capital, with the lender not yet profitable enough to fund its own capital requirements.
If NZ Post and/or Kiwibank had some private shareholders then they would be able to raise capital without needing taxpayers to borrow money from overseas to fund a competitive risky enterprise.
We should learn the lessons of Solid Energy. Reduce or eliminate the risk to taxpayers.
S42 of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act states:
Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 who, either alone or in combination with others knowingly spends, on advertisements published or broadcast in relation to an indicative referendum petition, more than $50,000
It is clear that Labour, Greens and the unions have spent well over $50,000 in promoting the petition. They have trampled over the intent of the CIR Act which is to stop people or groups from purchasing a referendum. Even worse, they have done it with our money. We see the hypocrisy where they are the ones who demand spending limits on all electoral issues, yet often flout them – remember the $400,000 overspend in 2005.
Whether they have broken the actual CIR Act will depend on what gets classified as an advertisement.
So I’d estimate conservatively they have spent $390,000 of which $225,000 is from the taxpayer.
Now what we don’t know is how much of this could be counted as an advertisement? If the staff collecting signatures were wearing t-shirts promoting the referendum than they could be walking billboards. And I’ve seen a lot of people wearing those t-shirts.
What difference is there between paying for an ad in a newspaper for people to sign the petition and paying someone to wear a t-shirt and harass passerbys to sign a petition?
I suspect a number of lawyers will be taking a very keen interest in the return that the petitioners file, and there could well be complaints to the Police about their possible over-spending.
Sadly though the maximum fine for over-spending is $20,000 so maybe they have just decided to ignore the spending limit and risk a $20,000 fine. time will tell.
What we do know is never before has there been such a massive use of paid (mainly taxpayer funded) staff to purchase a referendum. The four other CIRs have all been genuine grass-roots efforts, with the exception of the Firefighters Union one.
The latest BNZ and Real Estate Institute residential market survey found 9 per cent of house sales were to people offshore.
Of those offshore buyers, 18 per cent were from Britain, 15 per cent from China and 14 per cent from Australia.
Will we hear the parties of the left going on about banning Brits from buying property in New Zealand?
BNZ’s chief economist Tony Alexander said real estate agents reported that at least 69 per cent of British buyers planned to move to New Zealand, while 37 per cent of Chinese buyers and 51 per cent of Australian buyers intended to.
“Taken all up that means at most 5.6 per cent (but perhaps as low as 4 per cent) of all dwelling sales are to people offshore not planning to shift to New Zealand.”
So between 94% and 96% of sales are to people residing in NZ or intending to reside here. How disgraceful that some politicians have tried to blame house prices on the 4%.
“The sprawling anecdotes regarding Auckland properties being snapped up by Chinese buyers are not supported by the evidence,” Alexander said.
While most overseas buyers in Auckland came from China (19 per cent – compared with 18 per cent from Britain), sales of property in our biggest city to Chinese buyers comprised just 2.1 per cent of total sales there.
And just 1.2 per cent of house sales in Auckland were to Chinese buyers not intending to move here.
1.2%. Remember that number the next time the xenophobes try to blame them.
This is the alternative. They honestly seem to believe that you can enrich a country by just printing more money. I thought this lunacy died out with Social Credit.
The only Western countries doing QE are those which have the official cash rate near zero and have run out of other options. No sensible country is advocating printing money in the circumstances NZ is in.
There is a difference between a last resort and a preferred option. As an analogy if someone is dying from blood loss through a severed limb then a tourniquet is your last resort to stop them dying. But if they have just cut their leg open a bit, you don’t apply a tourniquet as your first response because the impact of doing so is very nasty.
In monetary terms, the nasty impact is prices go up and up.
The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has reported back the Local Electoral Amendment Bill. The Bill basically updates the local body election laws to much the same level as the national electoral laws, so that there is greater transparency around donations. Both John Banks and Len Brown didn’t disclose numerous donations last election through (legal) use of anonymous donations (Banks) and laundering them through trusts (Brown).
Beyond the changes in the original bill, they have recommended some further changes:
require that candidate profile statements include whether or not the candidate’s principal place of residence is in the local government area in question
allow electoral officers to publish all election returns
allow prosecutions for up to three years after an offence was committed
Evening light near Mesopotamia station, Rangitata Valley Canterbury. Photography by Todd Sisson
Did you see how I did that? Adjusting this week’s post title to ‘Weekly’ in order to deftly wallpaper over my Wednesday tardiness, all the while retaining my beloved ‘W’ alliteration….
This image was made many moons ago and I have had a bit of fun playing in Adobe Lightroom to enhance the drama in the scene.
Thanks to Davidinnz for pointing out that I was directing you to our website development site over the past few weeks – I have moved a pile of wallpapers to the correct gallery now – sorry about that!
Free Wallpaper Download
You may download the large version of today’s image from this link: Please note the new, shorter, Password = wwp
See you next week – and thanks for all the great comments last week!
Catherine Isaac provides some facts in the NZ Herald:
At the heart of this model of school is a binding, legally enforceable contract with the Crown that will require any organisation seeking to establish a school to meet specific, measurable performance goals including student academic achievement, student engagement indicators and financial, legal, health and safety and organisational performance.
A school unable to demonstrate very clearly how it will attract and retain disadvantaged learners and help them succeed, and how it will engage with their families, will not get through the rigorous authorisation process.
Think if we had that level of transparency and accountability for all schools?
They are a school of choice. No teacher will be forced to teach at one of these schools and no student will be forced to enrol in one. They will receive no more funding than the per-child amount received at a regular state school.
Some people think choice is bad. I think it is very good. And predict there will be a lot of demand in some of our most disadvantaged areas.
International evidence, notably the Credo research cited so often by opponents of Partnership Schools, has produced some conclusive findings. While results vary by state and by school, US charter schools have improved results for all students from low-income backgrounds, minority groups and those with English as a second language. Those with the best legislated models of charter school get consistently good results across the board.
In Sweden, after 21 years’ experience and data from 400 free (charter) schools and millions of students, the results are strong and clear: all students are doing better, achieving better grades and higher rates of participation in tertiary education.
Despite this evidence, some here don’t even want to give them a chance.
Partnership Schools are an opportunity for the teaching profession. The Swedish teacher unions did not oppose the introduction of free schools there, seeing them as providing good professional development opportunities for their members. Subsequent surveys have proven them right.
I wouldn’t hold your breath on expecting a similar view from the local unions here!
The marriage bill has hogged the headlines but worth noting that David Clark’s Mondayisation bill passed its second reading despite being opposed by the Government.
Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori, Mana, United and Brendan Horan were 61 votes in favour and National and ACT 60 votes against.
I’m pleased to see it progress. it is illogical that we Mondayise some holidays but not all of them.
I don’t accept the argument that by placing the public holiday on a Monday, it shifts the focus from the actual day.
Put it like this. If Christmas Day is on a Saturday, the public holiday is on Monday the 27th. Does anyone celebrate Christmas on the 27th or regard that as Christmas Day? Of course not.
There is a legitimate debate you can have about whether 11 paid public holidays a year is too many or too few. But if we have a public holiday, it should occur every year in opinion – not just five out of seven years.
It is also a good thing to occasionally have Parliament able to legislate over the will of Government. This is the benefits of no party having a majority (there are drawbacks also). You don’t want the Government losing votes too often, but it is good for a Government that they have to defeat bills in the House on the basis of the strength of their argument, not on the basis of a vote in caucus.
In the end the arguments against David Clark’s bill are not persuasive and it should also pass into law in April.
In the next decade, the years when it will have an impact are:
2013 – none
2014 – none
2015 – ANZAC Day on a Saturday
2016 – Waitangi Day on a Saturday
2017 – none
2018 – none
2019 – none
2020 -ANZAC Day on a Saturday
2021 – Waitangi Day on a Saturday, ANZAC Day on a Sunday
There is a Hands Off the WOF Facebook group set up by the MTA. They of course want to force people to keep getting six monthly WOFs, despite all the evidence being the costs massively outweigh the benefits. I’m surprised they don;t go the whole hog and advocate weekly WOF checks.
Anyway they posted this week about a worn brake rotor, and said this was proof you needed six monthly WOFs. They said:
This brake rotor has completely worn through one side and separated from the central hub, meaning the owner of this van had been driving around with brakes on one side only stopping his vehicle (the one shown intact in this image).
The van owner only brought it in for a check up because he heard ‘a noise coming from the front’. Aside from the fact that this is a significant component failure, it still had 8 months left on its WoF.
First of all, it actually shows that drivers will get cars checked out when there are problems. But the more important point is made by a commenter:
Anyone with any commonsense is going to look at this wonder how it was allowed to get anywhere near this condition.
It is pretty obvious that the car shouldn’t have got anywhere near getting a clean WOF checks four months earlier. There is no way it goes from okay to the state displayed in four months. I think it actually shows that the current system is no guarantee of safety – it is just a guarantee of revenue.
Tired and delighted that the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passed its second reading by 77 votes to 44. That means 64% of MPs voted for it and 36% against. Four MPs swapped from yes to no (Brownlee, McCully, Coleman, McKelvie) and Huo went from abstain/absent to a yes (he explains why here).
I expect that the third reading will be by much the same number. Second reading is the stage where normally some people may shift their vote based on what has happened during the select committee process.
So let’s cover the evening from the beginning. I have to say I really love Parliament when it is debating a conscience issue – you get MPs speaking with passion about what they really believe and think, a massive difference from most bill debates which are relatively pro-forma. It really is Parliament at its best.
Due to the unexpected need to debate the Budget Policy Statement, it was far from clear at the beginning of the day if the marriage bill would conclude its second reading. To do so Parliament had to get through question time, the Budget Policy Statement, a third reading, a committee stage, half a second reading and then the marriage bill second reading.
Few people wanted to have the debate cut in half where it starts yesterday and concludes in two weeks, so with some astute MPs taking shorter calls than they could on earlier debates, the marriage bill debate started just after 8 pm.
The gallery was packed. And I mean packed – there was a queue to get in forming around 7 pm, and they ran out of seats so allowed many to just stand at the back of the public galleries. I wasn’t sure how many were supporters and how many were opponents, but noticed that the vast majority were young Kiwis. This is very rare in the gallery, and great to see.
I may have joked that probably all the women there were lesbians or fundamentalist Christians, which reduced my chances of scoring. A lesbian friend consoled me with the thought that there may be some bisexuals there 🙂
There were 12 speakers on the bill. They were in order:
Louisa Wall (Lab) – in favour
Tim Macindoe (Nat) against
Ruth Dyson (Lab) – in favour
Chris Auchinvole (Nat) – in favour
Trevor Mallard (Lab) – in favour
Winston Peters (NZF) – against, sought to send to referendum
Kevin Hague (Green) – in favour
Kanwaljit Bakshi (Nat) – against
Lianne Dalziel (Lab) – in favour
Tau Henare (Nat) – in favour
Jan Logie (Green) – in favour
Chester Borrows (Nat) against
There were two common themes in the speeches. The first was that MPs were generally very respectful of the passionate views on this issue. Those in favour spoke of their desire to respect religious views and the safeguards that had been placed in the bill to help with that. Those against spoke of how touching some of the testimony had been, but what their concerns were with the change. There was, for the main part, no name calling or insinuations about motives. It was a good debate.
The second theme was about how the communications from some of those oppossed to the bill had not helped their cause – and that came from MPs who were against the bill. There was a strong message there.
The draft Hansard is here. I could quote and critique every speech, but will just touch on a couple. Tim Macindoe said:
A common theme of many emails from the bill’s supporters, given that my Christian faith was and remains the main reason for my position, was that ours is a secular society and my faith should be left out of the debate. I understand that view but in matters of conscience one must fall back on firm foundations. To ignore what I perceive to be God’s will in this debate would therefore be unthinkable, even though I acknowledge that not all Christians think as one in this matter and I agree with Glyn Carpenter in the New Zealand Christian Network that Christians must approach this matter graciously and with respect.
It’s good that Tim was explicit that he voted against because he thinks it goes against God’s will. The question for me is whether what some people interpret to be God’s will should be a reason to impose that view through legislation. That is a slippery slope that leads to (for example) sharia law in some countries, based on what their MPs think is God’s will. Until such a time as God speaks for himself on such issues, I can’t agree with laws based on God’s will.
Last year I indicated that a principal reason for my opposition was my concern that Parliament is moving ahead of the churches on this issue.
If Parliament didn’t move ahead of churches on various issues, we’d be in the dark ages. The churches wanted homosexuality to effectively remain a criminal offence. The 1986 law change was well ahead of the churches – yet almost no one today says that law change was wrong.
The best speech of the night was National MP Chris Auchinvole. I’ve embedded the speech below and recommend it highly for a great listen. Just as Paul Hutchison was the stand out of the first reading, Auchie was the stand out of the second reading. Interestingly while generally support for allowing same sex marriage is greater amongst younegr New Zealanders and less so amongst over 60s, it is worth noting Hutch is 65 and Auchie 67.
A couple of quotes:
Although I cannot imagine, if the bill passes, that a particularly large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to engage in same-gender marriages, I also cannot imagine that any number would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my wife and I have enjoyed, or to anybody else’s heterosexual marriage. I cannot see it. I have thought deeply about this and cannot believe that the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect the right of those who wish to hold to that view, but I cannot give it currency in coming to a defined position on this bill.
Having a few more married couples in New Zealand will be good for society in my view!
Another grouping held a perception that this is counter to religious views and practices and represents State interference in religious practice, beliefs, and dogma. The select committee listened very carefully and sincerely to the concerns expressed. As someone who had 5 years as a lay minister for the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa / New Zealand and was a member of the council of assembly for the Presbyterian Church, I had a particular interest in this aspect of the discussion. It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged—indeed, forced—to conduct ceremonies for same-gender couples should the bill be passed.
And the amendments make clear this can not happen.
The third consideration—we have heard it spoken by my colleague and friend Tim Macindoe this evening—is that marriage is an institution: time honoured, never changing, and having the essential components of one man and one woman common to all countries and civilisations throughout the millennia until death do them part.
It ain’t necessarily so. I am privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I married on 11 March, 41 years ago last Monday, and lived happily ever after. But the question that exercises the upper echelons of ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should take a vow of obedience to her husband. If you are marrying a red-headed West Coast girl from a West Coast aristocratic family, some hope. During that same time, to have children born out of wedlock was a hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce, or indeed wanting to marry someone of a different religion. Banns of marriage were called from pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage, and others were invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to forever hold their peace. Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women.
And other speakers touched on how just a few decades ago some states in the US banned inter-racial marriage.
The last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matter of conscience and the question of family coming first. In terms of conscience, I have given much, much thought to this. I am acquainted with guilt. Being a Presbyterian, one goes through life thinking that one has not worked hard enough, has not done enough, and has not reached the requirement that life’s opportunities offer, and you will always get other members who will tell you that, as one did this evening. To assuage my conscience on this issue, I delved back in my life to the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion tell me the Jesuits determine it is at 7 years old, when I was a boy. I looked at catechismic values—learning the catechism by rote in Glasgow: “Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? God made me to know him and love him.” The third question: “What image did God make you in?” The answer: “God made me in his own image.” Every 7-year-old boy and girl said the same, and believed it was true. They did not have to add: “as long as I conform to being heterosexual, and not to loving anyone of the same gender as myself.” My conscience is very clear on this issue. Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another, to being made in the image of God, and it will take a braver person than I am to deny that.
Wonderfully said.
So, in dealing with the legacy of discriminatory prejudice, and I would not want that to be a deciding feature, I prayerfully ask to be able to internalise and resolve this complicated situation in my head, in my heart, and in my soul.
Heh.
What I learnt from listening to the submissions, colleagues, was that in fact each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person appearing before us was not to be seen just as an individual, not to be identified just by gender preference, but in fact seen as a mother’s son or a daughter, and a father’s daughter or son, as siblings to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts, and uncles and aunts to their nephews and nieces, and cousins to their cousins. They are all family, along with their heterosexual friends and relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family, and all are part—in my mind, in my heart, and in my conscience—of God’s family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused it of undermining, and that isempt to b the family. We as parliamentarians should not simply look past the interests of the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their interests. We should, and we must, look after their interests. We should pass this bill.
I’m so glad I was in the House (galleries) for this speech. Television doesn’t do justice to the atmosphere. The sympathetic nods from around the House, the claps and smiles, the laughter, the intense interest. It was again my favourite speech of the night.
One saw this also with the next speech by Winston Peters. As he was calling for a referendum, he railed against “politicians who think they know best” and said “There is nothing more odious, more loathsome, than politicians who think they know best”. What wouldn’t have been captured by cameras is that there was spontaneous laughter from almost the entire public galleries as Winston was railing against politicians who think they know best, as it was self-evident to everyone that Winston is of course the classic politician who always thinks he knows best. The laughter wasn’t deliberate or an attempt to be disrespectful – it was just a spontaneous outbreak as his speech almost became self-parody unwittingly.
Anyway we got to the votes at around 9.45 pm. There were actually three votes. They were:
To accept the select committee report and proposed amendments.
Winston’s amendment to the second reading motion proposing a referendum at the next general election in place of reading the bill a second time.
The motion that the bill be read a second time and proceed
The first vote passed 66 to 21. I think the whips may have been unaware that there are always two distinct votes at second readings and they only had proxy votes to cover the second reading vote but not to cover the accept the select committee report vote.
The amendment by Peters for a referendum went down 33 to 83. It was an interesting quirk of standing orders that while you can not amend a bill at second reading, you can amend the motion for it to pass its second reading.
The final vote was the key one, and the Assistant Speaker announced it passed 77-44. There was a round of applause but fairly muted as the galleries had been warned not to participate in the business of the House. However once the House was adjourned the entire public galleries rose spontaneously to give a sustained standing ovation to the House and MPs. It was quite electric, and I suddenly realised as I looked around the galleries that I think every single person there was in fact a supporter of the bill as they were all standing and applauding.
Afterwards had a great time celebrating, which David Cunliffe had fun facebooking photos of 🙂
Got to sleep around 2.30 am. Will finish this post with a quote from Chester Borrows who in fact voted against the bill. But he made a good point:
As a Christian—a conservative Christian—I find it abhorrent the way that Christians have entered into this debate, and the threatening nature with which they have emailed colleagues. I know of colleagues who have set out thinking they will vote against this bill and who have changed their mind because of the way they have been treated by Christians, supposedly worshipping in their daily lives and witness a loving God. If they profess to worship that God, then it is a different God whom I worship and whom I believe in, because they have shown nothing of that love—that all-encompassing love—in the way that they have conducted themselves in this debate. It is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another, they always bring out the worst, and seek to have those people who do not hold to our faith shove us into a pigeon-hole that would brand us all in the same way. I think that is a despicable way for people of faith to behave.
I know a number of MPs whose support for the bill was lukewarm, but they became more staunch in support of the bill due to some of the appalling e-mails they got from some opponents.
Sources tell me that insurance chiefs from the biggest reinsurers in the world are now pricing Wellington as “ground Zero for earthquake reinsurance risk” in the world. Not the Asia-Pacific. Not the ring of fire. The world.
And as a result practically speaking earthquake reinsurance cover is not practically available for commercial property in Wellington.
Yes some policies are being written on some buildings (usually ones which are up to code and have blue chip tenants) for 400% to 600% premium increases.
My apartment’s building insurance has already doubled and off memory it is at 80% of code!
In the Wellington commercial property market full insurance is a condition of all the mortgage business. Full replacement earthquake insurance is a standard term and condition.
In NZ most companies which carry business interruption insurance also need to have earthquake interruption cover to satisfy the conditions of the bank credit facilities. These often include warrantees around the quality of the building that business is being conducted out of – including the existence of earthquake insurance cover.
So what does this mean?
It means that the Wellington CBD property market is frozen. The only purchasers are ones which are buying with cash. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of distressed mortgaged unit title and company share owners in the city.
It means rentals are falling and landlords are getting creative.
A group of New Zealand’s leading political pollsters, in consultation with other interested parties, have developed draft NZ Political Polling Guidelines.
The purpose is to ensure that AMRO and MRSNZ members conducting political polls, and media organisations publishing poll results, adhere to the highest “NZ appropriate” standards. The guidelines are draft and comments, questions and recommendations back to the working group are welcome.
This code seeks to document best practice guidelines for the conducting and reporting of political polls in New Zealand. It is proposed that the guidelines, once approved and accepted, will be binding on companies that are members of the Association of Market Research Organisations (AMRO) and on researchers that are members of the Market Research Society of New Zealand (MRSNZ).
The code only covers “political polls”, which for the purpose of the code are polls that related to public votes such as national elections, local body elections and parliamentary referenda. This is in recognition of the fact that reporting of polls may have an impact on how people vote.
For each issue, the code details, where appropriate:
Best practice for the market researcher conducting the poll
Best practice for the market researcher in reporting results
Best practice for the media in publishing and commenting on results
It is intended that the code assist politicians, political scientists, journalists and members of the public to be confident that political polls do in fact largely represent the opinions of the wider public and are a guide as to likely voting behaviours if an election were to be held at that time.
The development of the guidelines is in recognition of the fact that reporting of polls can have an impact on how people vote. Inaccurate polls, or polls that are interpreted and reported inaccurately, can impact on voting attitudes and behaviours and thus influence the democratic process.
It behoves all members of the polling and media communities to treat polling responsibly. Reliable polls (rather than informal surveys) require a high degree of rigour. These guidelines are designed to ensure that rigour is understood and applied.
The guidelines have been developed in the light of the European Society of Market Research (ESOMAR) international guidelines. ESOMAR is the global authority on research best practice and both AMRO and MRSNZ are ESOMAR members. It is recommended that those interested also read the ESOMAR /WAPOR guide to opinion polls and published surveys.
NB: The term “must” indicates a requirement, while the term “should” indicates recommended best practice.
Conducting
Reporting
Publishing
Sampling
Size
A minimum size of 500 is required for nationwide polls.
Report must include the sample size, and the sample size of “decided” voters.
Story should include the sample size.
Sampling Method
Should be either “random” or “quota”.
Report must disclose the sampling method.
Story should include the sampling method.
Response Rates
Researchers should aim to maximise response rates by conducting multiple call-backs.
Report should disclose that multiple call-backs occurred.
Representativeness
The sample should represent either those self-identified as eligible to vote or those likely to vote.
Report should disclose the population the sample represents.
Story should include the population the sample represents.
Likely Voters
Those who say they are unlikely to vote should be excluded from the analysis.
Report must exclude those unlikely to vote from the analysis of voting behaviour.
Collection Method
Phone
When employing random probability sampling, both the household dialled and the respondent selected in the household should be random.
When employing quota sampling, the household dialled should be randomly selected, but the person in each household may be selected to achieve specific quota requirements.
Report must disclose how a respondent is selected.
Online
No panel member must be asked to complete the same poll question more than once every six months.
The final panel sample should reflect a true cross-panel of eligible New Zealand voters, which may be achieved by screening or weighting.
The panel should stay open for at least 72 hours.
Researchers should try and minimise people signing up to their panel, just to participate in political polls as such self-selection can bias the result.
The panel should be managed in line with the ESOMAR guideline for online research.
Report should disclose panel recruitment and makeup, and that it complies with the ESOMAR guideline for online research.
Omnibus
If the political questions are part of a longer omnibus poll, they should be asked early on.
The report must disclose if the questions were part of an omnibus survey.
The story should disclose if the questions were part of an omnibus survey.
Question Order
It is recommended the principal voting behaviour question be asked before all other questions.
The report must disclose the order of questions asked and any political questions asked before the principal voting behaviour question.
The story should disclose any other questions which may have impacted the responses to the principal voting behaviour question.
Weighting
Weighting Method
A random sample poll should ideally be weighted using an industry accepted weighting methodology to correct for the probability of selection and/or non-response.
The report should confirm the sample was weighted.
Weighting Variables
A minimum of gender and age should be weighted.
Report should disclose the variables the poll is weighted on.
Story should include that the sample is weighted.
Variables not to weight on
When weighting to correct for demographic non-response, the calculated sample weights should be based on known or estimated population characteristics (for example, from Statistics New Zealand or the Electoral Commission).Weighting should not be based on previous voting behaviour, which is subject to memory accuracy.
Margin of Error
Maximum Error
The maximum sampling margin of error must be 4.5 percentage points for national polls, at the 95% confidence level.
The report must disclose the maximum margin of error.
The story should include the maximum margin of error.
Maximum errors for breakdowns
The report should disclose the sample size and maximum margin of error for demographic breakdowns.
Stories should avoid reporting breakdown results from very small samples.
Significance
The report should highlight results that are statistically significant. This includes trend changes, not just from the previous poll.
Stories should focus on changes that are statistically significant.
Errors for results < 50%
The report should include the maximum margin of error for results below 50%, such as for 10%.
Media should be careful not to assign the maximum margin of error to low polling parties.
Other Errors
Care should be taken to eliminate sources of error not associated with the sampling process.
It is acceptable to state the margin of error for a simple random sample, at the 95% confidence level, but other sampling errors should be reported on if deemed significant.
Timing
Data Collection Dates
The final poll before an election should be conducted as close as possible to the reporting date.
The report must disclose the dates the data collection occurred.
The story should disclose the dates the data collection occurred.
Median Date
As more responses often occur earlier in the poll, the date the median response was collected should be calculated.
The median date of collection should be included in the report.
Results
Undecideds
The poll script should probe initially undecided voters as to a lean or preference.
The report must state the number and percentage of “undecided” and “refused”.
The story should include the percentage that was undecided.
Trends
Reports should highlight significant trends.
Stories should focus on significant trends, which may not be just between the current and last poll, but over a number of polls.
Seats
Reports should include seat projections, and any assumptions used for electorate seats.
Stories should include analysis of not just individual party results, but also likely “bloc” results as the highest polling party may not be most likely to get to form Government.
Reports
The agency should prepare a report suitable for publication with full results and methodology.
The online version of stories should link to the full report, as quickly as practical.
Terminology
The term “poll” should only be used for scientific polls that are done in accordance with international and national industry codes of practice. The term “survey” should be used for forms which have self-selecting samples such as text in or website surveys.
The guidelines also include a proposed easy reference guide for media:
If possible, get a copy of the full poll report and do not rely on a media release.
The story should include the name of the company which conducted the poll, and the client the poll was done for, and the dates it was done.
The story should include, or make available, the sample size, sampling method, population sampled, if the sample is weighted, the maximum margin of error and the level of undecided voters.
If you think any questions may have impacted the answers to the principal voting behaviour question, mention this in the story.
Avoid reporting breakdown results from very small samples as they are unreliable.
Try to focus on statistically significant changes, which may not just be from the last poll, but over a number of polls.
Avoid the phrase “This party is below the margin of error” as results for low polling parties have a smaller margin of error than for higher polling parties.
It can be useful to report on what the electoral results of a poll would be, in terms of likely parliamentary blocs, as the highest polling party will not necessarily be the Government.
In your online story, include a link to the full poll results provided by the polling company or state when, and where, the report and methodology will be made available.
Only use the term “poll” for scientific polls done in accordance with market research industry approved guidelines, and use “survey” for self-selecting surveys such as text or website surveys.
It is important to stress that these guidelines are a draft only, and the pollsters are keen to get feedback from interested people. Specifically suggestions for possible other requirements, amendments to proposed guidelines or even removal of a specific point.
Please send any comments, questions and submissions on the guidelines to [email protected].
The date listed as the closing date of 1 March is incorrect. Feedback is still welcome, and it is planned in May to hold public consultation meetings in Auckland and Wellington.
Note that I was a member of the working group that developed the guidelines, as were representatives from UMR, Ipsos, Digipoll, Reid Research and Colmar Brunton and the MRSRZ President and AMRO Executive Director.
Cardinals have elected Argentine Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as the new pope to lead the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, overcoming deep divisions to select the 266th pontiff in a remarkably fast conclave.
Bergoglio is the first ever pope to come from the Americas and the first from outside Europe in more than a millennium. He chose the name Pope Francis I.
Pope Francis is 76 years old, just nine years younger than the Pope Emeritus.
He has been a Cardinal for 12 years. It is speculated he was the “runner up” to Pope Benedict in the last conclave.
It will be interesting to see the style he adopts as Pope, the issues he focuses on, and especially how well he does at sorting out some of the corruption in the Vatican.
Latin America is home to more Catholics than any other continent. I imagine the news of a Latin American Pope will be a cause of much celebration there.
It seems to me that there were two major factors that led to the problems at Solid Energy. One was the fall in global coal prices, and the other was the borrowing to fund alternative energy projects which haven’t led to a return.
In terms of the first, I’d be very keen for an MP to ask John Palmer and Don Elder some questions along the lines of:
What global price for coal was used each year in your 2008 to 2012 business plans as the projected price?
For each of the following years, what was the worst case scenario that was used for global coal prices, and how did that compare to the actual price?
How often did you update your business plans and revise the assumed coal price?
Did Solid Energy undertake any hedging – why or why not, and at what level?
Were the decisions on alternative energy projects contingent on a certain level for the coal price? If no, why not?
What was the company’s risk management strategy around a coal price slump?
These are not gotcha question, which I suspect some MPs will try and do. They’re questions that would actually help us understand why the company has got into so much trouble.
It will be interesting if Labour attack John Palmer, considering what Trevor Mallard said when he appointed him Chairman:
“John Palmer is widely regarded and respected as one of New Zealand’s leading governance practitioners,” Trevor Mallard, SOE Minister, December 2006, announcing Mr Palmer’s appointment as chairman of Solid Energy
We also have Helen Clark on Don Elder:
The PM did however point out that Solid Energy’s CEO Don Elder had assisted in turning around a struggling enterprise into one that was now greatly benefiting the NZ taxpayer. – Scoop in 2007
Also of interest is what Trevor Mallard said about the influence of the Government on Solid Energy’s operations:
“If we’re doing planning going forward we’re making sure that we do have both security [of supply] and a good mix of renewables then it’s easier to influence that with ownership as well as with general regulation,” Trevor Mallard on AGENDA, TV1, June 2007, speaking about Solid Energy
And if you want a great reasons for why the Government should not be the owner:
“Well I think in some areas for example Solid Energy would do some investment in research in renewables for coal and in gasification and carbon sequestration in a way that a private sector company wouldn’t.” Trevor Mallard on AGENDA, TV1, June 2007
For example the money wasted on biofuels. Even Damien O’Connor complained about it in August 2012:
Hon Damien O’Connor: Why should miners in Huntly and on the West Coast lose jobs to save money for Solid Energy, when the company has wasted millions of dollars on a biofuels project that has failed, and now threatens to destroy the high-value vegetable oil industry in New Zealand?
It was pointed out:
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the point that was being made was that the biofuels obligation was created by the previous Government
And in case you don’t believe Mr Joyce:
Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s right.
Maybe it should be Trevor Mallard answering questions, not just John Palmer and Don Elder. Especially considering this statement:
Trevor Mallard: I was the Minister in charge of Solid Energy when they bought land with lignite resources. This was done on purpose so that it would come under control of the SOE – so you can work that land in a way which is socially responsible. I understand that that area could be very valuable in the future; that it could provide 400 years’ worth of vehicle fuel power.
It is absolutely correct that John Palmer and Don Elder front up to the select committee. I imagine some will try and turn it into a public crucifixion. Once that pantomime antics are out of the way, I hope we get some insightful questions into what they regard as the factors that led to the company’s failure, what critical mistakes that Solid Energy made and what would they have done differently in hindsight.
Given the paucity of talent within Labour’s ranks and the divisions within the party, Mr Shearer’s desire to restore a supporter to the front bench is understandable.
The public, however, may well have different priorities when it comes time to assess Labour’s fitness to operate the levers of government.
Ms Provost’s investigation found no evidence of corruption, but it did find ample evidence of poor judgment on the part of the former associate minister of immigration.
A harsh summary is not corrupt, just incompetent.
She found Mr Jones acted hastily before he was in possession of all the relevant information, did not consult either police or the Immigration Service despite knowing both were investigating Mr Liu, and failed to document the reasons for his decision.
Immigration and citizenship cases are fraught with danger for ministers because the final say on cases rests with them and because those making representations on behalf of applicants are often their parliamentary colleagues.
It is easy for the perception to develop that it is not what applicants offer New Zealand that is important, but who they know.
Especially when the applicant boasts to the Department that he is mates with MPs, insists on a quick decision despite officials telling him they will recommend no.
In those circumstances the best protection for ministerial reputations and New Zealand’s reputation as a country free of corruption is for the decision-making process to be properly documented.
Mr Jones’ failure to record why he ignored official advice to reject Mr Liu’s application and his failure to even document under which section of the Citizenship Act he granted Mr Liu’s application brought his reputation and that of New Zealand into disrepute.
As Mr Jones observed, officials were also criticised by the auditor-general for failing to adequately brief the minister and assuming he understood his responsibilities. Fair enough. It is as important for them as it is for ministers to follow proper process.
However, having explained their concerns about Mr Liu’s dual identity and the fact he had been red-flagged by Interpol, they had grounds for thinking the minister would put the integrity of New Zealand’s citizenship ahead of his impatience to be done with a vexatious case.
The question voters may want to ask themselves ahead of the next election is would they employ someone with Mr Jones’ impetuous nature to run their company. If not would they trust him to run a government department?
The great carpark tax debate is one of those issues where any government will take a hammering (like PC lightbulbs and shower heads) and where any opposition should be having a field day.
Already, one of National’s support partners, Act, has come out against it and the Maori Party probably won’t be far behind. Ministers are already distancing themselves.
So, can Labour make the most of it?
Well, when the tax was first proposed, Labour’s then Revenue Spokesman, the Rev. Dr David Clark, was quick to see the politics and attacked it.
Then, on Monday, when the bumper-sticker campaign against the tax was announced, current Revenue Spokesman, David Cunliffe, called it a “catastrophe”.
It’s a bit like asset sales. They make lots of noise, but seem unable to articulate what they will do differently and are unable to speak with one coherent voice.
Labour leader David Shearer won’t rule out supporting Winston Peters’ policy of buying back Mighty River Power shares at cost if they form the next Government. …
Mr Shearer said, “We won’t rule it out but we won’t rule it in either.” Labour would not be able to make any commitment on it before an election.
Incredible. They are saying we might confiscate your private property but we’re not going to tell you whether we will or not before the election.
A friend and his wife are staying with me. They are back in NZ for a couple of weeks from the UK.
Was very amused to hear of their interaction with Immigration NZ at Auckland Airport.
The Passport Officer noticed he was a returning Kiwi, but his wife was not. She commented that he had been away for a while and asked if he would be having a Kiwi Mince Pie now he is back.
He replied in the affirmative, and she then turned to his wife and asked her if she would let him have a pie when he is in New Zealand, explaining it is the Kiwi thing to do.
She then went one step further and told the wife that in fact she was making it a condition of her entry into New Zealand that she would let him eat a pie while in New Zealand.
My friend was pleased enough with this assistance from Immigration New Zealand, but even more delighted when the Passport Officer became even more supportive and further declared to his wife that her entry conditions now included letting him do whatever he wanted to in New Zealand and asked her to verbally assent to these conditions, to which she did – to his great delight.
I doubt there are many countries where you can have that sort of humourous banter with government officials. It would never happen I suspect in the UK, but it did reflect our very Kiwi humour – gently hassling. And it actually made for a great welcome into NZ (for him anyway!) from the usual boring dross of immigration queues.
Long may it last.
I suspect the only people upset with this exchange will be the humour-impaired or the anti-obesity coalition that keeps trying to get pies banned!
A mole has leaked to me a couple of strategy documents from Labour and Greens on the referendum they have just purchased with our money. The documents are embedded below, and they show the extent of taxpayer resources used to purchase this referendum.
CIRs are meant to be about the public being able to send a message to MPs, not MPs using taxpayer funds to relitigate an election result. Some key revelations:
They aimed for 400,000 signatures as they knew a fair proportion would be found to be invalid.
At the 300,000 mark the Greens collected 150,000, Labour 105,000 and Unions 40,000. The Greens are the ones who used taxpayer funding to hire petition collectors.
Labour pledged 30 hours per week staff time from their taxpayer funded budget
Greens were using their permament taxpayer funded staff to co-ordinate
The unions had a paid national co-ordinator
They refer to unions gathering “car loads” of organisers and activists to travel to areas
For their day of action, Greens said they will committ five full-time staff – presumably all taxpayer funded, if Labour does the same. That’s 10 taxpayer funded organisers.
A list of unions to pressure to do more, including PPTA, NZEI, Nurses Organisation – minority shares in power companies of course being key education and health issues!
It is very clear that there has been very few ordinary citizens involved in this petition – mainly a legion of taxpayer funded staff and union staff.
Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Police: What trends have been seen by Police since laws were changed in 2009 to combat illegal street racing?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very poor and 10 being outstanding, how does he rate the Government’s performance on job creation?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, in relation to drought-stricken farmers, that “I wasn’t referring to climate change. It’s just that if it turned out that there was a succession of droughts, there’s no amount of government assistance that can offset that effect on farming’?
SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has been made with the Government’s Apprenticeship Re-boot?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: By how many dollars has the gap between New Zealand and Australian average weekly wages grown since December 2008, based on the methodology tabled by Hon John Key on 28 July 2010?
TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he intend to take any action about the failure of SkyCity Auckland to prevent access to the casino by people with gambling problems as recently reported in the media?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the Government’s initiative to provide Better, Sooner, More Convenient health care is meeting his expectations, if not, why not?
ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister for Land Information: How much of New Zealand farmland is foreign-owned?
Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Associate Minister of Health: What progress has been made in reducing infections in intensive care units?
PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What specific actions, if any, does Auckland Council need to take to avoid Government intervention, given his reported statement that “the Government would use the reformed RMA to intervene in Auckland”, if Auckland Council doesn’t change its planning practices?
Today there are four questions from National on issues ranging from the Governments Finances, Boy Racers, Apprenticeships and Infection rates in Intensive Care Units around the country. Labour are asking five questions to ministers ranging from Confidence in Ministers, Job Creation, Wages between New Zealand and Australia, Health Targets and Auckland housing issues.
The Greens, Maori Party and New Zealand First are each asking one question on issues ranging from Climate Change to Sky City Casino and Land Ownership
Today’s pasty of the day goes to question 11 from Dr Jackie Blue on infection rates in Intensive Care Units.
Budget Policy Statement 3pm to 5pm
Today Parliament will be debating the Budget Policy Statement 2013 and Treasury’s Half-Year economic and fiscal update which has recently been reported to the house via the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Private and Local Orders of the day 5pm – 6pm and 7.30pm to 10pm
This bill would allow for the South Taranaki District Council to transfer ownership of the Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Scheme to back to the community via creating a co-operative called Cold Creek Community Water Supply Limited which would allow allow them to look after the scheme that provides water to around 7,620 hectares of land in the Pihama/Te Kiri area in South Taranaki.
At the 2nd reading of this bill the vote passed by 102 to 16 with the Greens, Mana and the Maori Party voting against this bill.
This bill was created to amend the Habas Corpus Act 2001 as a result of a report produced by the Law Commission in 2007. In addition, it gives Judges more room to move in regards to the issue of Habeas Corpus applications.
At the last reading of this bill the vote passed by 112 to 7 with New Zealand First opposing the bill. Denis O’Rourke voted against this bill on the grounds “it is a nonsense bill” (Quote from Denis O’Rourke, 2nd Reading, Hansard)
This bill creates the ability to Monday-ise both Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day so that if these public holidays fail on a weekend day then you would be able to claim the public hoilday on the following Monday.
So far this Bill has been supported by all other parties other than National and Act, however is expected to pass tonight as National will not be exercising there power of Veto on this bill.
This bill is designed to amend the Marriage Act 1955 to allow for a change to section 2(1) to allow Marriages to be conducted between 2 people instead of the status que of between a Man and Women.
For a record of who voted for and against during the first reading please click here and scroll to the bottom of the page
But we heard about the issue of Lesley Longstone and I just want to raise that with Chris Hipkins who has been particularly interested in that issue. I want to take him back and remind him of when he was Victoria University Student Association President and what he said back then about a $42,000 package to get rid of a former vice-chancellor. I quote from the New Zealand Herald in 2000: “Victoria University Students Association President Chris Hipkins said while he did not like the idea of paying people to go away it was money well spent.”
What a change of tune from Mr Hipkins. I am sure that quote will be remembered when he next expressed outrage over a contractual payout.
