John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Teacher unions have told schools to flout the law and refuse to release national standards data to the media.

But some schools have already released figures showing how many of their students are meeting the standards and what they’re doing to improve achievement.

The Dominion Post has asked schools across the Wellington region to release the information they were required to send to the Education Ministry about the number of pupils at, above, below or well below national standards in reading, writing and maths.

The ministry declined a request for the data, but acting senior manager Dennis Cribb said individual schools could be approached.

About 10 have already responded with information and others have indicated their data will be forthcoming.

Some of the data released includes results from 2010 and 2011, showing pupils’ progress between years.

But teachers union, the New Zealand Educational Institute, said schools should not give results to the news media and should instead refer any requests for the information to the ministry.

“We are entering a new era of `naming and shaming’ schools in order to sell newspapers and even worse, the publication of league tables will be unfair and based on faulty, misleading and valueless misinformation,” NZEI president Ian Leckie said.

The Principals’ Federation has also advised schools on ways to try to prevent league tables being created from the information they supply.

In an “urgent” advisory, NZPF president Paul Drummond suggested schools should “consider reporting in general terms”.

Mr Leckie said parents wanting to know about a school’s performance should talk with the teachers and principal. They could also look at Education Review Office reports.

I never knew that the Official Information Act did not apply to schools. Oh wait, it does.

One should read ERO reports and talk to teachers and principals at schools. One should also talk to pupils and parents. But one should also have an interest in the assessment data for the school. All of them together help make for informed decisions.

From the parliamentary written questions database:

3061 (2012). Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Energy and Resources (20 Apr 2012): Where, to the best of the Minister’s knowledge, has hydraulic fracturing occured in New Zealand?

Hon Phil Heatley (Minister of Energy and Resources) replied: Underground.

A big relief for Obama today. Reuters reports:

The US Supreme Court has upheld President Barack Obama’s healthcare law in an election-year triumph for him and fellow Democrats and a stinging setback for Republican opponents of the most sweeping overhaul of the unwieldy US healthcare system in about a half century.

In a 5-4 ruling based on the power of Congress to impose taxes, the court preserved the law’s “individual mandate” requiring that most Americans obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax.

Opponents of the law had argued the mandate was an overreach by the federal government into the private lives of citizens. The court was deeply divided on this issue, but the majority ruled that Congress’ taxing power was more important.

The law’s “requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority.

“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” wrote Roberts, who was joined by the four most liberal members – Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – in upholding the law’s key provision.

Very interesting that the Chief Justice voted with the liberal wing.

This is definitely good news for Obama. Having his major domestic achievement thrown out would have meant he would have very little domestic achievements to campaign on.

However I do find it hilarious that the left celebrate Obamacare as a huge victory for socialised medicine and the like. If a Republican President had proposed the key tenet of Obamacare, I suspect it would be decried around the world as vicitimising the poor.

You see Obama failed to get a law through which set up taxpayer funded healthcare as in the UK, Canada and New Zealand.

What he passed was basically a law saying it is illegal not to have private health insurance and we will fine you, if you don’t get some. Someone on Twitter said:

Oh no, poor people will get proper health care and avoid dying earlier?

Which I thought demonstrated they had no idea what the law actually does. The individual mandate does not extend health care to poor people. It fines poor people for not having health insurance.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

ACC’s methods are again under the spotlight after it confirmed using “neuropsychological and psychological assessments” to help decide if claimants were being straightforward.

That came to light yesterday after claims it uses “lie detector tests” to see if claimants are telling the truth.

Claimant Margaret Read told Radio New Zealand that ACC would not believe her statements of brain and spinal injuries, nor evidence from specialists, and applied a lie detector test.

An ACC spokeswoman declined to comment on an individual case, but said the no-fault insurer did not use lie detector tests.

Asked if any of its processes could be interpreted as a lie detector test, she said that was subjective. “What seems to be being referred to is the use of measures in neuropsychological and psychological assessments to provide some indication as to whether the client is presenting in a straightforward manner; that is, not under- or over-reporting their symptoms,” she said.

“Neuropsychological assessments administer tests which look at the client’s cognitive functioning (thinking functions such as language, attention, speed of thinking, memory, flexibility in thinking and problem solving skills).”

They were used to help indicate whether “clients are either minimising or exaggerating their emotional symptoms such as anxiety and depressive symptoms”. This was also to determine whether the assessment results truly reflected a client’s current emotional functioning.

When a client displayed evidence of a lack of effort, under-reporting or exaggeration of symptoms, ACC would try to determine why “and then provide the appropriate help the client needs to progress in their rehabilitation”.

Labour ACC spokesman Andrew Little said he was “gob-smacked” by the practice, which was evidence of the distrust ACC had for claimants. “It sounds like lie-detecting to me.”

I’m sorry but this is getting rather hysterical. This happens to be an area I know a wee bit about as I am related to a neuropsychologist. Neuropsychological assessments of head injured ACC clients has been happening since at least the 1980s. This is nothing new or unusual.

The assessments are not lie detector tests. They test damage and capacity of cognitive ability.

Of course the tests are designed to measure actual ability and damage, and can detect if people are exaggerating damage. That is why you get expert medical assessments. But that is not the primary purpose of the test, which is to assess capacity. It is like saying seeing a general practitioner is a lie detector test about your back pain.

Again these tests have been done for several decades, as far as I know.

The media seem to have finally found a homeless person in Christchurch, to photo and highlight. The Press reports:

After nine months living in a tent in a burnt-out, red-zoned home, a Christchurch man believes those facing homelessness should become squatters rather than live in a car.

So is this man homeless because of the earthquake and the lack of accommodation?

The unemployment beneficiary and father of two moved into a garage last month to be closer to his children …

Michael, who has a string of convictions, said he had faced homelessness several times …

There is no doubt that there are housing pressures in Christchurch. When you lose several thousand houses, it is inevitable. But I’m not sure Michael is a great poster boy for the situation.

The Press reports:

Why pay to party? If you want tickets to The Concert, you’re going to have to work for it.

The Concert is a live music event to be held at AMI Stadium on November 3.

Only 10,000 tickets are available and you can’t buy a ticket.

To get a ticket you have to do more than four hours of volunteer work in the community.

The event is co-ordinated by Student Volunteer Army head Sam Johnson who said yesterday that a team of five are working on the project full-time.

”As well as that core group, there is also the student volunteer committee and a team of 50 ambassadors that are taking the volunteering message into schools. They are an amazing group. It takes a lot of effort to put on a concert and we’re all working together to make it happen.”

He said The Concert is about people making a difference in their community, then celebrating at the concert.

Ideas for volunteering are unlimited, he said, and could involve everything from singing songs in a rest home to helping out sports groups.

”We will announce the line-up in mid July,” Johnson said.

”People just need to register their volunteer project on our website, the concert.co.nz or on our Facebook page. Four hours is the minimum you can do to get a ticket.”

The event is R15 with R18 areas and is sponsored by Skinny, a separate division of Telecom.

That’s a smart way to promote and reward volunteers.

Feeling especially pleased it’s Friday already.  Today’s pic is of the kaka, one of our small number of native parrots.

Click for larger, higher res image

Tariana Turia says:

Winston Peters has once again demonstrated his love for political theatre by creating a great melodrama out of a series of unproven facts said Tariana Turia following question-time today.

Mr Peters has cast doubt on the value of Whanau Ora – speculating about the spending of “$174 million of hard-earned taxpayers’ money-some of which is in this audit here-when many providers are using it to pork-barrel, and rort, and commit fraud”.

“Problem is – and it’s a problem for Mr Peters – the organisation he referred to in the House today has never received any funding from Te Puni Kokiri; it is not part of a Whanau Ora Collective – and in actual fact in the audit he referred to there was no mention of Whanau Ora.

“Mr Peters makes allegations at his whim about Whanau Ora – and deserves to be challenged about the veracity of these claims. Sadly his attempts to undermine Whanau Ora will not work because there is no truth in these claims.

This is very lazy work by Peters. He saw some report about a Women’s Refuge having dodgy accounts. But instead of actually finding out where does it get its funding, he just assumes it is a funded via Whanau Ora and alleges it is as that is his pet target.

A modicum of research would have meant that Peters could have avoided this. It’s not hard. Read the annual report. Ask some written questions. Grand-standing is no substitute.

Radio NZ did an interview with a Dave Wooley on ACC this morning. I suspect they are going to interview a disgruntled person a day. Now I think it is fine to interview disgruntled people with ACC, but media should be balanced, and actually ask questions, not just allow one side of the story – especially as ACC can not talk about individual cases in the media generally.

Mr Wooley had a work related accident in 2006 and has just gone off ACC compensation. Radio NZ said his family of six now live off his wife’s salary of $26,000. For a start this is clearly false. They would get WFF of $363 a week (net) on top of that, plus possible accommodation allowance.

They also reported he gets $23 a week benefit and claims that half of that is $11.50 a week to live on. Radio NZ reported this as fact, and never asked him about WFF.

Not only did Radio NZ fail to ask about WFF, and allowed the repeated assertion of a family of six surviving on $26,000 a year, they did not ask a single question about why he was no longer getting ACC. No question about what the medical assessor determined.  No question on what the independent review by Disputes Resolution Service found. No question about anything – just allowed him to say whatever he likes unchallenged.

I have said that some parts of the ACC culture do need changing, and they do. But this does not mean you accept without challenge every claim by every individual who thinks they should receive ACC support. That is not journalism. Next time I hope Radio NZ at least attempt to ask pertinent questions.

Matthew Littlewood reports:

A Timaru district councillor is “puzzled” by council management’s refusal to link to his blog.

Hamish Fraser has been running his blog since he was elected to the council two years ago, and has even live-blogged council meetings.

However, recently he asked management to include his blog address on the council’s website.

“We’re in the middle of a representation review, which has pretty big implications for the community, particularly Geraldine, Temuka and Pleasant Point,” Cr Fraser said.

“I would have thought the more community engagement we had on this topic, the better.

“For some people, the blog is the way they interact with me. Certainly a lot of people are finding it easier to comment on the blog or email me than give me a call,” he said.

However, Timaru District Council management told Cr Fraser that it would not include the link to his blog as the “council has no control over the quality, accuracy or opinion contained in your blog”

That’s silly and stupid. A link is not an endorsement. So long as it is clear the blog is the personal opinion of Cr Fraser, then as an elected official he should be able to have it as part of his profile.

Some of those who have been offered $250 compensation from ACC for the privacy breach, have said it is not enough and they want more.

The problem is that it is not really ACC that is paying them $250. It is me and you, and employers and employees all around the country. It is not the staff or managers who made the breach, or the directors of ACC.

I don’t like my premiums having to go on privacy breach settlements. I pay them to help injured workers. Why should I have to fund mistakes by ACC staff?

Surely I should be given the choice to choose an alternative workplace accident insurer? Why should I have to keep funding a company that is a monopoly, and one that I can’t withdraw my business from?

Vernon Small reports at Stuff:

The Government has written down the value of KiwiRail’s land and network assets from $13.4 billion to $6.7b and converted $322.5m of debt to equity in a major restructuring of the state-owned rail company.

The change will hit the Budget deficit adding another $1.8b of red ink to the expected operating balance which on Budget day was forecast to be $10.6b deficit for the year to June 30.

Thanks, Sir Michael Cullen. The over the top price you paid (with our money) for Kiwirail was called the Sale of the Century, and it was. Never before has a buyer made such a bad purchase. Toll must still be drunk from celebrating the millions they got from selling a lemon.

Labour or Greens have complained that National is going to sell Kiwirail. If only! There’s no one out there stupid enough to buy it. I doubt we could even give it away for $1.

Photo from Stuff.

In one sense it is not unusual for the Queen to meet and shake the hand of “her” deputy first minister in Northern Ireland, but Martin McGuinness is better known for his former roles in the Provisional IRA, including allegedly its Chief of Staff from 1978 to 1982.

Some will not like this, but I think it is another good step forward. Norther Ireland today is far better off than when the conflict was in full flight.

UPDATE: Also worth noting that McGuinness probably signed off on the assassination of Lord Mountbatten in 1979, who in a cousin of the Queen’s and uncle of Prince Philip. I understand Prince Philip went out of his way, not to shake hands which is understandable. The Queen however must do what is best for her country.

Today is a sort of Super Thursday at Parliament. A massive four new members’ bills will be drawn out of the ballot.

There are around 59 bills in the ballot, and two of them are on same sex marriage so the chances of one of them being drawn is around one in eight.

I’ll blog later today the ballot, and which bills got drawn.

Just finished watching the final episode of Backbenches, well on TVNZ7 anyway. I watched in on TV, as the Speights Ale House was crammed to capacity. A fair bit of the show ended up being filmed on the pavement outside after a fire alarm went out, providing an exciting end to the show on TVNZ7.

It is possible the show may get picked up by another broadcaster, but for now anyway it has ended after four and a bit years.

In the main, I’ve greatly enjoyed the show – both as a viewer, and occasional participant.    The after show drinking sessions ending up at Hummingbird have also been good!

I thought I would first start with the good. The two producers – Caroline and Mary-Anne – are always friendly, always professional, put together an excellent production and two really great people to boot.

The combination of Wallace and Damien worked well. Damien’s humour and Wallace’s engaging style produced a very watchable show.  I said to Wallace some years ago that one day I could see him on Close Up. I still hold to that view.

The floor manager and technical staff did an excellent job of live broadcasts from a non-studio. The Backbenches pub was a great venue for the show, as has been Speights Ale House for the last three weeks.

I think it was a great thing that we had a show, where any member of the public could turn up at the pub, and see four MPs debate the week’s issues, and meet and chat to them before hands and afterwards. There are few countries that have their MPs so accessible. I recall one show on a day the House rose early, and there were over 40 MPs at the Backbencher.

I also think the show was great for MPs, especially well backbenchers. Previously some MPs would never have to debate on live television until they were a Minister – and normally only if they are in the crap! It’s good training for MPs.

So many good things about Backbenchers, and I will miss it. But there were two or three issues which did detract from it.

The first is the behaviour of some in the audience. We saw this tonight where they booed and hissed as Peter Dunne got introduced. I will heckle (hopefully something humourous) an MP when they say something worth heckling, but would never ever boo or hiss an MP – as would be the case for most people. But the partisan activists who regularly jeer, boo and hiss those they disagree with did the show a dis-service. And if no other broadcaster does pick up the show, then I happen to know their behaviour has been an element in that. Certain broadcasting executives have commented on some of the appalling rudeness.

Linked to that, is the composition of the audience has changed over the four years. There has always been a hard core group of activists from the right and left who have turned up, which is good. But there used to also be a lot of non-activists turn up, who just wanted to experience the show. Over time it seems there were fewer of those, and the audiences became more and more the partisan activists.

Another issue for me has been the composition of the panels, since the 2011 election. The formula has always been one MP per party. Up until the 2011 election this would normally mean two Government MPs and two Opposition MPs. After ACT lost all their backbenches in 2011, the result has been almost every panel has been three opposition MPs and one Government MP. It could have been worth allowing two MPs from National, or alternatively having just three MPs on the panel, so it is slightly less lop sided.

As I said, it is possible Backbenches will continue on another channel. I hope it does. While I have highlighted some issues (I’d solve the booing issue by having the cameras do close up focuses on those doing it), I definitely think overall it has become a fun part of New Zealand politics.

Photo by Heather du Plessis-Allen Soper

Journalist Laura McQuillan was evicted from the media bench at the Scott Guy trial because some court bureaucrat deemed her Pants unsuitable.

Is this sexism in the courts? I’ve been on a media bench in jeans at court. Would a guy have been kicked off for his choice of leg wear? Plus what does it matter, as you are sitting down and no one sees your legs anyway unless they are deliberately perving?

Or do people think the Registrar was correct? That court is no place for anything shiny?

This graphic is from Andrew Bolt. It shows that the Howard Govt policy on deterring boat people was a stunning success, and the Labor Government’s changes entirely coincide with a massive explosion in boat people numbers. So when they drown at sea, it is because the previous policy of deterrence was dispensed with.

The Daily Mail reports:

Children commit crime because they lack morals and not just because of the environment they live in, according to a new study.

Cambridge University studied around 700 young people in Peterborough for over a decade and discovered that most adolescent crime is not just youthful opportunism.

In fact, while it is agreed that urban environments trigger some young people to commit crime, it is their morality which is the biggest factor.

Other teenagers remain highly resistant to committing crime – regardless of the circumstances.

Many of us know people whose background would be one, where a life of crime might be expected. But they chose not to.

The Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study was carried out by Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology.

And it found that rather than crime being widespread among teenagers, a tiny band of delinquents have each committed a staggering 278 crimes by the age of 16, say researchers.

The thugs, who make up less than 4 per cent of the teenage population, are responsible for nearly half of youth offending, they found.

The ones who have a dozen convictions by their 21st birthday.

The researchers found that 60 per cent of the 16,000 offences were committed by a ‘crime-prone’ 16 per cent of those studied, including the hard-core of 3.8 per cent.

They committed an average of 86 crimes each between the ages of 12 and 16.

This group admitted having the weakest morals, being impulsive and short-sighted, and having no self-control.

The 16 per cent most ‘crime-averse’, who were judged to have the strongest values, accounted for only 0.5 per cent of the crimes reported.

A lack of moral compass, rather than the opportunity to commit crime or social background, was revealed to be the most important factor in youths breaking the law.

The research, which is the most comprehensive study of youth crime in Europe, found that teenagers who avoided crime did so not because they feared the consequences or lacked the chance, but because they saw it as wrong. Professor Per-Olof Wikstrom, who led the Cambridge study, said: ‘’Many young people are ‘crime-averse’ and simply don’t perceive crime as a possible course of action – it doesn’t matter what the situation is.

The idea that opportunity makes the thief – that young people will inevitably commit crime in certain environments – runs counter to our findings.

‘Rather, only the “crime-prone” become vulnerable to said opportunities when taking part in environments with a moral context that encourages or at least does not discourage crime.’

But of course no article complete without someone banning society:

But Camila Batmanghelidjh, the founder of Kids Company, a charity that works with disadvantaged children, cautioned against branding some young people as amoral.

She said it was ‘a given that it’s a good thing to teach right from wrong’, but added: ‘Society is lecturing children and young people about how well behaved they should be but it’s not behaving in a way that warrants respect.’

Yes, the problem is society is not behaving in a way that amoral young thugs respect!

The Herald reports:

Principals and the Green Party are calling for a review of the Tomorrow’s Schools model which they say has caused secondary schools to adjust school zones and cherry-pick students.

Concern has mounted after a report by a visiting United States scholar found most Auckland secondary schools were zone-fixing – intentionally skewing their enrolment zones to improve their decile rating.

Principals say zone-fixing is nothing new and competition between schools has grown since the Tomorrow’s Schools model was introduced under David Lange in 1989.

There should be competition between schools. Parents should get a choice.

One has to understand that zoning does not operate in isolation. Say you have two schools in town. School A has 800 pupils and is at capacity and hence has a home zone. School B has 500 pupils with capacity for 600, and 200 of them would like to go to School A, but can not.

The problem is the Ministry will not allow the popular School A to grow, because the nearby School B is under capacity. So School A has a zone, excluding those outside it.

The actual solution is to allow schools to grow, when they are popular – even if there is surplus capacity at other schools.

Now people say pupils should be allowed to enrol at their closest school. I agree.  If a school is physically unable to grow any larger, then priority must go to locals. But schools should be allowed to grow to their maximum capacity if they are competent and popular, and this may even involved multi-campuses.

So I’d have two policies, to replace zoning.

1. Every pupil has the right to attend the school they are geographically closest to (by travel on road)
2. Every school is allowed to expand to as large as its board of trustees wants, with funding being per pupil

This would provide much better choice.

UPDATE: I overlooked that today is a members day. Normally the order paper is published at 11.30 am and will state this but due to the extended sitting the order paper was still yesterday’s one. So it will have been government bills in the morning and members’ bills in the afternoon and evening after general debate.

Extended Sitting from Tuesday 9.00 am – 1.00 pm

See Government orders and bills below

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Is she confident that all providers contracted through the Family-Centred Services Fund are meeting the appropriate financial and governance standards?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What are the benefits of getting better results from public services?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “you can’t and wouldn’t want to” stop retail investors on-selling shares to foreign buyers under his asset sales policy?
5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What commitments has the Government made to reduce the number of child assaults in New Zealand?
6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Is narrowing the wage gap with Australia the fundamental purpose of his Government, if so, where is the specific target in National’s 120-point action plan, National’s revised six-point Brighter Future plan or his more recent ten results for New Zealanders?
7. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government improving pathways into vocational training as part of its target for lifting qualifications at Level 4 and above?
8. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: What were the total line-by-line savings in Vote Biosecurity in Budget 2009 and Budget 2010?
9. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What commitments has the Government made to raising student achievement in New Zealand?
10. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: What involvement, meetings or contact did his predecessor have with Infratil, NZ Bus or Snapper Services regarding Auckland’s integrated ticketing system, and what involvement did the Government have in the decision to include Snapper in the project?
11. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Labour: What recent reports has she received regarding the success of 90-day trials?
12. KEVIN HAGUE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported comments regarding ACC that he “backed the corporation’s harder stance, saying it should continue and there was no evidence legitimate claimants were missing out”?

Patsy of the day goes to Q9 – What commitments has the Government made to raising student achievement in New Zealand?

Labour are asking a gotcha to John Key, wage gap with Australia, Vote Biosecurity and Snapper.

Greens are on asset sales and ACC and NZ First on Whanau Ora.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Appropriation (2011/12 Supplementary Estimates) Bill (three hour debate)
2. Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill – committee stage
3. Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill – second reading continued
4. Families Commission Amendment Bill – first reading
5. Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill – committee stage continued

The House sits from 9 am to 10 pm today, for a total of ten and a half hours. Hard to estimate how far they may get – will primarily depend on the Social Security committee stage debate.

The Appropriation (2011/12 Supplementary Estimates) Bill was introduced in May 2012 and authorises the additional expenditure for 2011/12 on top of the 2011 Budget.

The Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill was introduced in March 2012 and seeks to introduce a new system of income support for young people and introduce a stronger work focus to some benefit categories. At first reading it was supported by National, Maori, ACT and United and opposed by Labour, Greens, NZ First and Mana. The Social Services Select Committee reported it back, with minority opinions from Labour, Greens and NZ First in opposition. It passed second reading 63-57.

The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill was introduced in August 2011. It seeks to establish an environmental management regime for New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf. At first reading it was supported by National, Greens, ACT, Maori, United and C Carter and opposed by Labour, Progressive and Mana. The Local Government and Environment Committee reported it back, with opposition from Labour, Greens and NZ First.

The Families Commission Amendment Bill was introduced in May 2012 and seeks to restructure the Families Commission.

The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill was introduced in September 2008. It seeks to facilitate increased co-operation between the Commerce Commission and other overseas competition and consumer regulators. It passed first and second readings without dissent.

Judith Collins has stated she is paying for her own expenses in the defamation suit against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little. She had the option of applying for taxpayer funding, but chose not to.

Has anyone confirmed whether or not the taxpayer is funding the legal costs for Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little? It would certainly be within the rules, for them to be funded  out of David Shearer’s parliamentary budget – but have they chosen to do so?

If they lose, and have to pay Collins’ legal expenses (she is not seeking damages, just a declaration and costs) will that also be funded by the taxpayer?

James Weir at Stuff reports:

Reserve Bank Governor-in-waiting Graeme Wheeler was once touted as a potential World Bank president and gained fame for telling his boss, Paul Wolfowitz, to resign during what was seen as a civil war at the World Bank.

Wheeler’s appointment to take over at the central bank when Alan Bollard steps down on September 25 was welcomed yesterday, even though many had expected deputy governor Grant Spencer to win the top post.

Spencer may be disappointed and it is not clear if he will stay at the central bank, given Wheeler may serve at least one, possibly two, five-year terms. Wheeler has a strong international reputation, especially in world financial markets.

He takes over what is arguably one of the most important roles in the economy as the sole final decisionmaker on monetary policy: what to do with official interest rates and when.

I’ve only heard good things about Wheeler, and from all accounts he should prove to be an excellent Reserve Bank Governor. It is a very important role, and one that can come under considerable political pressure also.