Stuff reports:

A Labour MP drew parallels between the National Party and Adolf Hitler as controversial legislation allowing partial asset sales passed by a single vote.

The Opposition benches cried “Shame!” yesterday as National’s junior whip Louise Upston cast the decisive proxy vote of UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne, which saw the legislation pass by 61 votes to 60.

Mr Dunne was not at Parliament for the vote because he was attending the funeral of his son’s girlfriend’s mother.

In a statement, he said he had intended to speak in favour of the bill at its final reading, which was in the “best long-term interests of the country”.

Opposition MPs continued to insist Mr Dunne had misled voters over his views on the partial asset sales plan.

Labour’s state-owned enterprises spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said Mr Dunne’s vote was “a travesty of democracy” because he had said he was against the sale of water resources before last year’s election.

Labour are trying to rewrite history. Not a single voter in Ohariu thought a vote for Peter Dunne was a vote to stop asset sales. Dunne’s reference to water resources was about water supply companies, not about power companies that use water.

Check  this thread out from May, where you have quotes from leftie activists before the election about how they need to stop Dunne as he is a vote for asset sales, plus this explicit quote from Peter Dunne:

in the event National puts up its mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand we would be prepared to support that, provided the maximum was 49%, with a cap of 15% on any indivudual’s holdings

So Labour is clearly lying when they say Dunne misled voters. In fact that is exactly what they are doing, and are masters of.

Some believe the Government has no mandate for the sales because several polls have shown a majority of voters are against the policy.

Labour’s Wigram MP, Megan Woods, said yesterday: “Hitler had a pretty clear manifesto that he campaigned and won on … does this make what he did OK?”

Oh dear, where do we start with Dr Godwin.

Let’s even put aside the implicit comparison of partial asset sales (a policy scores of left wing governments around the world has also implemented) to the Nazis, Hitler and the Holocaust. Frankly if Dr Woods want to make such stupid comparisons, I urge her to carry on doing so. They reflect far more on her and Labour, than anyone else.

But what really annoys me is her woeful knowledge of history. Only those with a superficial scraping of history repeat the line that Hitler was democratically elected, as if he won a majority of seats. He was and did not.

In July 1932 the Nazis got 37.3% of the vote and just 230 out of 608 seats. In November 1932 the Nazis got fewer votes at 33.1% and 196 seats only. They made up only three of the 12 Cabinet members. He then seized power through various ways.

Also the assertion that Hitler had a clear manifesto he implemented is also woefully ignorant of history. Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party campaigned as an anti-big business and anti-capitalist party, with a later focus on anti-semitism and anti-marxism. Their 25 point plan did say Jews can not be citizens, and would be foreign guests who could be expelled. But that is a long way from saying “Oh yeah, we will exterminate them also”. People may be interested in some of their other policies:

• We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
• We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
• We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
• We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

UPDATE: Dr Woods has apologised.

Mother Jones says:

 In HBO’s hit show Game of Thrones, there are dragons, sword fights, and zombie armies. But the heart of the show is intense political intrigue. Alliances are forged and broken; backroom deals are cut; principles are sacrificed. It’s a dirty game. Yet imagine how much more unsavory it would be if super-PACs and dark-money outfits existed in the Seven Kingdoms. We did—and here are the results.

Here’s two of their ads:

And

Heh, both excellent. I love Game of Thrones.

Am amusing exchange on Twitter:

Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz

Radio NZ reporter Julian Robins has switched sides to become spin doctor for Labour and David Shearer

Ali Ikram (@AliIkram)
26/06/12 11:51 AM
When a Radio NZ journalist moves into PR for the Labour party does that constitute a shift to the Right?

Heh.

Interestingly I think this is the 5th press gallery journalist in the last three years to join the Labour or Greens media teams. By contrast, in the last three years I can only recall one gallery journalist going to work for the Government – despite the fact they have several times more staff.

The American interest blogs:

Despite there being no real effort by Congress to addressglobal warming and America’s longstanding reputation as an energy hog, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are falling.

The lackluster economy has something to do with it. But it doesn’t fully explain what’s happening. Consider that even factoring in a stronger economy, forecasters see greenhouse gas emissions continuing to fall.

It’s possible the country may meet its pledge to reduce emissions 17% by 2020.

So what is causing this?

The secret isn’t laws, green activism or regulations (although these do have roles to play). Innovation is the force that is enabling the cut in US carbon emissions. Specifically, the new ways of extracting natural gas that make have driven a natural gas boom in this country and dramatically cut the cost of the cleanest hydrocarbon energy source of them all. …

Ignore the greens and innovate, and you will cut carbon. Pay a lot of attention to them, spend a lot of money — and you will keep carbon emissions unchanged.

The story of course is more complicated than this, and there are real environmental problems that come with fracking. Nevertheless, the one force capable of enabling human beings to have the kind of freedom and abundance that they want while preserving the planetary environment on which we all depend is innovation. Regulations and laws have their place, but they can only do so much.

Right now, fracking is doing more to control carbon emissions than all the efforts of all the greens in the world. …

And by creating more well paid blue collar jobs both in gas and oil extraction and in the manufacturing industries that will grow to exploit the new cheap energy sources, fracking strengthens the American economy and the tax base, providing revenues for both federal and state governments.

Fracking is the left’s best friend.

Now the Greens always say climate change is the biggest challenge the planet faces – we risk extinction in fact. So I expect them to immediately stop their campaign to ban fracking, and endorse its use!

The Herald reports:

Fonterra’s dairy farmers have voted in favour of the Trading Among Farmers scheme, paving the way for the biggest shake-up since the co-operative was formed in 2001, despite a vote for constitutional change not reaching the required 75 per cent.

Trading Among Farmers (TAF), which will let members of the investing public gain access to the dairy giant, has been a controversial issue for Fonterra’s 11,000 or so farmers who have been casting their votes over the past few days.

Fonterra chairman Sir Henry van der Heyden said yesterday’s special meeting of shareholders had given the board a clear mandate to proceed with TAF but some farming leaders said the vote was a less-than-ringing endorsement.

The first resolution for TAF, which required a simple 50 per cent majority, received 66.45 per cent support.

Not directly affected by this, but I think it is a good thing. A lower vote in favour would have been seen as not enough of a mandate, and Fonterra would lose direction.

I think having both dividends and milk payouts will lead to fairer pricing also.

Photo by Felix Marwick.

Good God, that may be the smallest protest ever at Parliament.

Former Labour MP and principal Kelvin Davis blogs at Maui Street:

When the government says that national standards, charter schools, league tables, performance pay, quality vs quantity of teachers will all raise achievement, they might be right.

That’s because there are very few strategies that teachers (or governments) can implement that actually make students dumber. Teachers can rightly put their hands on their hearts and swear that what they do in class lifts achievement. Just about everything has some positive effect, but some have a large positive effect while others barely register. It would make sense to develop policy based on those strategies that have the greatest positive effect.

The much quoted Professor John Hattie’s research lists, from most effective to least ffective, 138 different ‘things’ that may be implemented in education, and all but five have a positive effect on learning. The five strategies with a negative effect are: Summer vacation (-0.09), Welfare Policies (-0.12) Retention (Holding kids back a year, -0.16), Television (-0.18) and Mobility (-0.34). So unless we prescribe longer Christmas holidays, keep kids back a year or two, or force students to watch an extra 8 hours of TV a day, almost everything else will have SOME positive effect on learning.

That’s quite interesting. I wasn’t aware of that.

Any ‘strategy’ with an effect size of 0.40 or less is practically pointless. Which makes sense. 

In Hattie’s list the strategy with an effect size of 0.40 (Reducing Anxiety) is exactly halfway through the list of possible strategies. Hattie is saying if any particular strategy is to be used it should at least be in the top 50% of strategies.

Also interesting, and I agree you want to focus on those most effective. In fact that was what the Budget announcement was meant to be about.

Charter Schools have an effect size of 0.20, or the 107th out of the 133 strategies that have some positive effect. Charter Schools are therefore an extremely pointless and expensive strategy. 

That’s a fair point the charter schools are not deemed significantly effective. But charter schools are being trialled only. They are not the major focus for the Government. They are something agreed to with ACT, and their future will depend on the outcomes. Davis certainly makes a valid point that charter schools should not be the major focus in education. I agree. But that is not to say I don’t think they should be trialled.

What does the research say about League Tables and Performance Pay? 

Nothing. They don’t rate or feature in any way in Hattie’s research. 

What then is the basis for League Tables and Performance Pay if there is no research evidence to show these two ‘things’ will make a difference? How does the government know these two ‘strategies’ won’t have to be included alongside the five already proven to make students dumber?

Here though Davis is not comparing apples and oranges. As far as I know no one in Government is saying league tables are being done to lift achievement. The reality is that assessment data of schools is public information, and league tables will be done by the media regardless of what the Government does. The issue for the Government is simply given the reality of the media and others doing their own league tables, is there merit in the Government setting up some sort of database or tables of its own which will give more meaningful tables and comparisons than what the media may compile. The Government could do nothing at all, but you will still have league tables – media ones. Unless Davis still subscribes to Labour’s line that school data should be classified as top secret and not made available to the public.

As for performance pay, I presume that is not assessed by Hattie as it is an input. Hattie has found improving teacher quality is the most important factor. Performance pay might help improve teacher quality. As far as I know the Government has not said it is going to implement performance pay. It has said it is one option it is looking at.

I’d be interested in hearing Kelvin’s view on whether he agrees with Hattie that teacher quality or their ability to connect with students is the most important factor, and what measures would he advocate to support and retain the best teachers, improve the performance of the average teachers and get rid of the bad teachers. As a former principal he would have first hand experience, and now he is no longer an MP he doesn’t have to follow the party line.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to get better results and value for money from the public service?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What commitments has the Government made to reduce long-term welfare dependency?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “We are a government that thinks getting results is what’s really important”?
5. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Have Police, CYFS, medical and referee checks been carried out for all current placements by CYFS under referral by the Youth Court; if not, why not?
6. COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government working to encourage economic growth with a more highly skilled workforce?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding SOE chief executive salaries that “There’s a couple of bigger pay increases, I think three with the energy companies, which will be probably related to the share float that’s coming”; if so, does he support the $451,873 pay increase for the Chief Executive of Mighty River Power whose pay is increasing from $1,317,469 to $1,769,342?
9. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Associate Minister of Transport: What reports has he received on the public’s understanding of the new give way rules?
10. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all the answers given on his behalf to Oral Question No. 6 on Thursday, 21 June?
11. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with Bay of Plenty Regional Council Pollution Prevention Manager, Nick Zaman, that “courts, council and the wider community will not tolerate the pollution of our environment” and if so, what action will she take to encourage farmers and farm owners to comply with their legal responsibilities to protect waterways?
12. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: In the light of the latest monthly audience figures by Nielson, which show almost 1.6 million New Zealanders watched TVNZ7 in May, an increase of nearly 120,000 viewers in just one month, is he now prepared to recommend that the Government review its decision not to provide further funding so that TVNZ7, the only nationwide public broadcast television station, can continue operation beyond 30 June?

Patsy of the day goes to Q6 – How is the Government working to encourage economic growth with a more highly skilled workforce?

Labour are asking a gotcha to John Key, a gotcha to Bill English, SOE salaries, a gotcha to Tony Ryall and TVNZ7.

Greens are on CYFS, Maori Party on waterways pollution and NZ First a gotcha to the PM.

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

1. Mixed Ownership Model Bill – third reading
2. Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill – committee stage
3. Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill – second reading continued
4. Debate on performance of crown entities (three hour debate)

The Mixed Ownership Bill third reading will take two hours so should conclude around 5 pm. The Prisoners’ Bill is fairly simple and not opposed by Labour so it is possible it will pass committee stage quickly – even before dinner. The Dairy bill has just one speech left on it, so it is likely the Hose will commence but not conclude the debate on the performance of crown entities.

The Mixed Ownership Model Bill was introduced in March 2012 and enables the Crown to  remove Genesis Power Limited, Meridian Energy Limited, Mighty River Power Limited, and Solid Energy New Zealand Limited from the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, and restricts the Crown from holding less than 51% of the voting rights in each of the companies and will restrict non-Crown individuals and entities from holding more than 10% of the voting rights in each of the companies. It passed first reading 61-60 with National, ACT, United Future in favour and all other parties against. The Finance and Expenditure reported it back with minority reports from Labour and Greens. It passed second reading 61-59, and most votes in committee stage had the same split.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill was introduced in April 2012 and aims to  extend the restrictions on the awarding of compensation for one more year from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013. It passed first reading 72 to 48 with National, NZ First, Maori, ACT, United in favour and Labour, Greens, Mana against. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended that it pass, with minority reports from Labour and Greens. It passed second reading 103-16 with only Greens, Maori and Mana against.

The Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill was introduced in March 2012 and seeks to  introduce a new regime in relation to Fonterra’s milk price setting, proposed capital restructure, and share valuation. It passed first reading 64 to 54 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Mana against. The Primary Production Committee recommended it pass with amendments, with Labour and Greens giving minority reports.

The rules say you can fund it, if it does not ask for votes, members or money. This however must come pretty close to the line.

I love it how it talks about “our farms”. As far as I know, no Govt owned farms have been sold off. In fact Landcorp has been expanding internationally with its partnership with Shanghai Pengxin.

Also love the inclusion of Kiwibank on there, which escapes being called a lie I guess by inclusion of a question mark.

I wonder how you’d feel though if posters went up around your neighbourhood about you that (for example) had “Paedophile?” on them. I doubt you’d think the question mark makes it okay.

The Dom Post editorial:

For the first time in about 7000 years Egypt has a democratically elected leader. After days of delay, Mohammed Morsi, a 60-year-old United States-trained engineer, was yesterday declared the winner of the country’s first genuine presidential election.

His victory is the fruit of the popular uprising that ousted military strongman Hosni Mubarak in January last year. However, it remains to be seen whether the election changes anything.

Mr Morsi, a technocrat who stood only because the Muslim Brotherhood’s preferred candidate Khairat al-Shater was barred from the contest, has begun by making all the right noises. He has resigned from the Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, pledged to preserve Egypt’s international accords – a reference to its peace treaty with Israel – and promised to “represent” all Egyptians and appoint non-Muslims to key positions in his new government.

I’m not a fan of the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood, but that is no reason that the Mubarak dictatorship should continue. I suspect part of the reason the brotherhood gets so much support is because they were almost the only force against Mubarak.

It is possible that things may go badly for Egypt, especially if their new Government did try to attack Israel or break the peace treaty. But actually being in Government tends to moderate the rhetoric of opposition.  As you get focused on growing the economy, providing better healthcare etc, reducing crime, you realise these are what really matter to voters. There is of course a risk that if things go badly, they will try and provoke a fight with Israel, in order to bolster domestic support. The Iranian President does this often.

However imperfectly Mr Morsi fits the bill, he is the embodiment of the hopes of the young Egyptians who risked life and limb to bring about the end of the Mubarak regime and the tens of thousands of others who have protested on the streets of Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen, Iran and now Syria.

How he manages the tensions with Egypt’s military, relations with Israel and the West and how he treats women and minorities will be watched not only in Egypt but around the globe.

Egypt has its first democratically elected President. That is what all countries deserve – the ability to elect their own leadership.

Last month I blogged on taxpayer funded lobbying. This should be of grave concern, because what it means is effectively you have Government Departments funding NGOs to lobby MPs on what the law should be.

I had a response from the Public Health Association, which was:

Hi David, We would like to respond briefly to your 14 May post about taxpayers funding lobbying. The Public Health Association (PHA) acknowledges you have a valid concern and would like to make it clear that none of the public money we receive is spent on lobbying or advocacy. It is part of our contract with the Ministry not to do so. Any lobbying we do is funded by membership fees, individual donations and fund-raising. Money we receive from the Ministry is spent only on activities such as supporting the public health workforce.

The reality though I believe is that if the vast majority of your expenses are staff, then there is no way you can say that no public money is spent on lobbying.

Now I do not advocate that a body which receives some taxpayer funding should not be allowed to express a view on issues. That would be wrong. But when a body is both primarily funded by the taxpayer, and the bulk of its work appears to be advocacy and lobbying – that is when I think it should not be allowed.

The PHA openly states “The PHA is a voluntary association that takes a leading role in promoting public health and influencing public policy.”, and over 50% of their income is from the Ministry of Health. Most of the remainder is their conference which is I believe 90% public sector funded. Actual voluntary membership fees are only 5% of their income.

I’ve also been sent examples in the alcohol area. An OIA from the Ministry of Health reveals taxpayer funding of Alcohol Healthwatch with $3.35m, the vast majority for “alcohol health promotion”.

Have a look at their website. It is all about lobbying MPs on the Alcohol Reform Bill.

The Health Sponsorship Council has a presentation on their website from ASH. Slide 16 is about how they must “Hold the Government to account”.  ASH is 89% taxpayer funded, and was saying this at a taxpayer funded conference.

This outbreak of taxpayer funded lobbying is not unique to New Zealand. The Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK has published a report called “Sock Puppets: How the Government lobbies itself and why“. It is a compelling read. They note:

For political parties, the benefits of supporting ‘sock puppet’ organisations extend beyond the short-term utility of progressing their legislative agenda whilst in government. Once the party loses power, these groups become a ‘shadow state’ using public money to promote the same political ideology. The new government must therefore choose between withdrawing the funding (which will prompt outrage from the threatened groups) and keeping it in place (which will mean funding politically hostile organisations).

I think the Government should apply a simple litmus test. No organisation which spends say more than 25% of their time or resources or lobbying should be eligible for government funding. They should be forced to split into totally separate organisations if they provide genuinely useful services which should remain funded, but this should not be used to have the bureaucracy use sock puppets to lobby Parliament and MPs on what the laws should be.

Lobby groups should be funded by their members and supporters, not by taxpayers.

I’ve blogged before on the Government setting five year targets in a number of areas for both itself and the public service. Not only is this a fairly radical refocusing of the public service from outputs to outcomes, it is politically a brave thing for a Government to do. I can not recall any past Government actually setting concrete targets it wants to be measured against.

Hopefully it will lead to alternate Governments going into an election with not just policies about what they want to do, but actual outcomes they want their Government to achieve if elected. And I don’t mean general ones like “close the gaps” but specific such as “reduce the unemployment rate by 25% in three years”.

The National-led Government has now released specific targets, for its ten five-year goals. The targets are:

1. Reduce the number of people who have been on a working-age benefit for more than 12 months
   1. Reduce those on Jobseeker Support for more than 12 months by 30%, from 78,000 to 55,000
2. Increase participation in early childhood education
   1. By 2016, have 98% of school entrants having participated in early childhood education, up from 95%
3. Increase infant immunisation rates and reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever
   1. 95% of eight months olds to be immunised, up from 83%
   2. reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever by two thirds to 1.4 cases per 100,000
4. Reduce the number of assaults on children
   1. Halt the 10-year increase in child abuse, and reduce the current numbers by 5%
5. Increase the proportion of 18 year olds with NCEA Level 2 or equivalent
   1. Increase the proportion achieving NCEA Level 2 from 67% to 85%
6. Increase the proportion of 25-34 year olds with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees
   1. Increase the proportion of 25 to 34 year olds having advanced qualifications from 52% to 55%
7. Reduce the rates of total crime, violent crime and youth crime
   1. Reduce the crime rate by 15% – 45,000 fewer crimes a year
   2. Reduce the violent crime rate by 20% – 7,500 fewer violent crimes a year
   3. Reduce the youth crime rate by 5% – 600 fewer young people appearing in court
8. Reduce reoffending
   1. Reduce the reoffending rate by 25%, meaning 600 fewer prisoners and 18,500 fewer victims of crime
9. NZ businesses have a one-stop online shop for all government advice and support
   1. Business costs of dealing with government reduce 25%
   2. KPIs for Government services to be developed
10. NZers can complete transactions with government easily in a digital environment
    1. 70% of transactions with government can be done online, up from 24% currently

Now I don’t think anyone should expect all 14 specific targets to be achieved. That would be a near miracle. But what NZers will be looking for is at least some of them being achieved fully, and all of them to have progress and move in the right direction. The 2014 election will provide an opportunity for people to judge if they think the achievement to date has been satisfactory.

As I said above, I hope these specific outcomes and targets will become a feature of all future governments.

I’ve never wanted an Xbox, until now.

Conrad Reyners writes in the Herald:

Trey Parker and Matt Stone gave us some tantalising information on their new South Park title at Xbox’s E3 press conference; but they showed precious little actual gameplay.

Not to worry, we managed to secure access to a VIP Microsoft event where the lead developer and producer from Obsidian were demonstrating small scenes of what they’ve made so far. The title is, of course, still in its early stages, so we were forbidden from taking any pictures. But memory is a powerful thing, and there was enough on offer for us to get a general idea of how South Park: The Stick of Truth is shaping up.

It appears that, at its heart, The Stick of Truth will be a side-scrolling 2D title with significant RPG elements. Parker and Stone were adamant that the game would only proceed if the art style was the same as the TV episodes, and a 2D side-scrolling set up seems entirely appropriate.South Park was never “high brow”; it’s heartening to see that its creators feel the same way about its visual style. …

It looks like there will be a reasonable degree of sophistication in the title’s weapon loadout and customisation, systems that also suggested serious thought was being put into how the RPG mechanic works. There is a range of armour and weapons to choose from, and all of them come with Parker and Stone’s unique twist. For example, in lieu of a sword, your character can equip himself with Cartman’s mum’s dildo. Apparently it’s quite ferocious.

Heh.

The story itself is tightly anchored in the South Park universe. You play as the “New Kid” who must set about making friends in the quiet mountain town. Sent out onto the street to make friends (while your parents bang in their new bedroom), you have the misfortune of stumbling into Butters. He leads you to Cartman, who is engrossed in the most epic real-life fantasy role playing game ever devised; complete with his own “Camp” (his backyard), a “King’s Tower” (a ladder), a “Pool of Vision” (his paddling pool), and the “Royal Stables” (a sandbox with a mangy cat in it.)

Cartman’s camp is raided by other 4th graders, who make off with the eponymous stick, and Cartman sets about getting it back. We don’t know much more than this, apart from the fact that there are vampire kids and, according to the E3 presentation, Jesus turns up with an M16.

We also don’t know much about specific character customisation, but we do know that, in true RPG fashion, there are five classes to choose from; the mage, fighter, ranger, thief, and cleric. Again, Obsidian are covering all the bases and sticking to what’s worked before. But that’s to be expected; fans will be playing this title not because it is a standard turn-based RPG, but because it hums with the South Park vibe.

Parker and Stone are writing and voicing all the dialog, and it is reflected in the game’s idiosyncrasies. You level up from Douchebag to Butthole, for example, and Cartman abuses and taunts enemies during battle as only he can. In one particularly scandalous moment, your character is able to select a power attack. From nowhere saunters Mr. Slave who then sits on the enemy, swallowing them in his cavernous bottom. The producer politely described it as “South Park’s version of the banishment spell.”

I love South Park. I so have to get and play this.

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel debate the big issues on our final episode of “Back Benches.”

THE ECONOMY: When Back Benches began in April 2008, we were in the first few months of the Global Financial Crises—which has been at the centre of the New Zealand and World economies ever since. So, where are we today? Are we better off than we were four years ago? How have we fared compared to other nations? What impact have decisions over the last four years meant to our financial footing? And when will the years of austerity be over?

EDUCATION: We have talked about Education many times on Back Benches—Early Childhood, Primary-High School, Adult Education and University. In April 2010, we headed South to Dunedin to discuss University Life—from fees to paying back student loans. Now, in 2012—what’s the state of University Education? How are students affording Uni? Are they paying back their loans any faster or at all?

BINGING & BOOZING: One of the topics we have discussed more than any other is alcohol. The irony is not lost this pub politics programme. In 2009—the law commission released an issues paper on our liquor laws. While, the final report was to be published nearly a year later but we had our panel weigh in. Now, in 2012, Parliament is near deciding which of the 153 recommendations it will adopt. Will there be an increase in the purchase age? Will there be new sale restrictions? Minimum pricing? And will any of these changes actually make a dent in our binge drinking culture?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Shepherds Arms Hotel & Speights Ale House on Tinakori Road: Wednesday, 27th of June. Our Panel: Green Party Co-Leader Metiria Turei, Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, Mana Party Leader Hone Harawira, National MP Chester Borrows, and United Future Leader Peter Dunne.

Broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 9.05 pm, repeated on Saturday at 10.05 pm

A friend sent me this. It shows the balance of power between left and right since WWII in France. Too much red at the moment of course! But interesting how dominant the blue has been.

Iain Lees-Galloway blogs at Red Alert:

National’s irrational fear of being tagged with the ‘Nanny State’ label they successfully over-hyped against Labour has just jumped the shark.

3 News reported tonight that optics man Steven Joyce pulled a last minute flip-flop on making life jackets compulsory on small boats.

Associate Transport Minister Simon Bridges, sounding like he was on morphine, gave National’s reasoning as not wanting to over-regulate.

What the hell? We have tragedies like  this happening all the time because our laws are inadequate and wearing of life jackets is unenforceable.

Oh my God, I can’t believe that Labour wants to have water police motoring around and fining people for not having a life jacket on at all times.

Having life jackets on board at all times is essential. But making it compulsory to wear them at all times would  be a step too far.

I recall the last time I went out fishing. It was a beautiful day as we caught fish, cooked the fish and ate it. I also dived off the boat and swam around a bit before coming back on to dry off in the sun. Having to have a life jacket on at all times, would have seriously got in the way of fishing and sun bathing. As adults we made the decision that the boat was sturdy enough (close to the 6 metre limit for the proposed law) and the conditions calm enough that it would be ridiculous over-kill to be wearing life jackets. If I was in a two metre dinghy on a stormy choppy day, then I would wear one. It is called judging the conditions.

Yes it is sad when people die at sea. But going to sea always has an element of risk. Swimming at the beach is bloody risky also sometimes. I do not want to live in a society when the only goal of the Government is to eliminate risk, at the expense of choice and enjoyment.

The Herald reports:

 New Zealand has trumped Australia as a happier country in a survey ranking the well-being of nations.

The New Economics Foundation’s Happy Planet Index rated New Zealand as the world’s 28th-happiest country – well above Australia’s ranking of 76.

Yay, NZ is above Australia on an index. Does that mean we can relax, and not worry about their greater economic wealth? Nope. Luke Malpass at the NZ Initiative looks closer at the index:

This week, the New Economic Foundation (NEF) released its third Happy Planet Index (HPI). New Zealand scored 51.6 and is ranked 28th out of 151 countries.

The HPI is one of several trendy ranking reports that have sprung up over the past decade. It does not rely on per capita GDP growth alone as a proxy measure of a nation’s well-being.

Such reports argue that in the post-materialist world in which we live, it is important to measure things other than material prosperity through the useful but blunt measure of GDP growth. That sounds sensible and laudable but only until you see how it is calculated – and who performs well.

This particular survey uses the following formula:
HPI = experience well-being x life expectancy ÷ ecological footprint

The ‘life expectancy’ part of the equation is taken from the UNDP Human Development Report and is based on hard data. The ‘experienced life well-being’ bit is based on asking people how they feel about life, and the ‘ecological footprint’ is some consumption measure cooked up by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF).

The NEF claims: “The HPI is a clear and meaningful barometer of how well a nation is doing. This is its key value.” It sounds very nice, but who ranks where?

New Zealand is ranked 28th, Jordan is one place ahead of us, and Norway one place behind. Ranked above us are nations such as Algeria, the Philippines and Cuba. Bangladesh ranks 10th, and Vietnam 2nd. Pakistan – a nation where civil society has all but broken down – makes the top 20. Australia is 76th, below peaceful and prosperous paradises such as Myanmar, Tunisia, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

Algeria is a nice place to live, if you are a man. Men become adults at age 18. Women do not get any adult rights until they are married to a man. Cuba, Bangladesh and Pakistan all sound very happy places to live also.

And it is not just NZ that has beaten Australia – so has Myanmar – that impoverished dictatorship.

Obviously the question one might ask is: Would anyone really want to live in a poor dump ruled by human rights abusing dictators rather than a peaceful, wealthy democracy? Probably not. The HPI acknowledges that as extreme human rights abuses tend to affect minorities, the index methodology might understate them.

A yearning for competing indices to GDP growth arises out of good intentions – GDP is a narrow measure. However, at least it measures something measurable.

By contrast, most competing happiness indexes, including the HPI, tell us precisely nothing, including where we might like to live.

Like Luke, whenever I see a report I don’t just report it. I always look at their methodology and check out what exactly they are basing their rankings on.

Stuff reports:

A Taranaki woman who was put in the care of a convicted rapist during her teens has had an apology from Child Youth and Family.

At 16, the woman whose real name has not been released, was taken from her family and placed with an uncle who had spent six years in prison for taking part in a gang rape and who subsequently sexually abused her.

The woman said a friend of her uncle’s who has since died from AIDS also abused her and she and her first born son are HIV positive.

In a statement reported by Marae Investigates, the Ministry of Social Development said it was a gap in CYF policy that had let the woman down.

“In 2001 it wasn’t mandatory for CYF staff to do criminal checks around family placement decisions made at youth justice Family Group Conferences.”

Ministry of Social Development deputy chief executive David Shanks said that staff at the time still had to check the suitability of caregivers and the Ministry does not condone the placement of any child or young person with a convicted sex offender.

How appalling. Part of the solution is better checks, but part of the solution is revisiting the policy that family members be the priority for placement of children needing care. Often if the parents are unsuitable to raise a child, so are the wider family. Abuse does not occur in a vacuum.

Criminal checks for CYF placements became compulsory early this year.

As I said, that is a good step, but not necessarily the only one to be taken.

An interesting interview on Radio Rhema with Hone Harawira on the same sex marriage issue. I think the only broadcast interview he has done on the issue.

A couple of quotes:

My politics might be radical, morally I am very conservative. …

I value the marriage my father and my mother had. I value that marriage that I have with my wife. I don’t know necessarily that you just changes rules because somebody says change rules. …

One thing I am proud of in being in politics is I’ve never voted for something I didn’t personally believe in.

Quite a fascinating interview. Few MPs would self-describe themselves as “morally very conservative”, especially the leader of a radical nationalist left party.

Also an insight into Hone that he has never voted for something he doesn’t personally believe in. I think this helps us understand why he was never going to last in the Maori Party, or in fact in any party he did not lead. The reality of politics is that MPs often have to vote for something they are not always personally convinced of. If this wasn’t the case, then every single issue and vote would be a conscience vote, and no Government could ever actually lay out a policy platform. Even Keith Holyoake once said he only agreed with about 80% of what his Government did.

Politics involves compromises, and Hone’s inability to ever compromise will always make him less effective than he could be.

As for the actual issue of same sex marriage, Hone has said he is happy to talk to Mana about it but I note his statement about never voting for something he does not believe in. I wouldn’t want to bet money on him changing his position.

Every so often you may see a poll which is commonly regarded as an outlier poll, ie well outside where other polls  are. A reader has asked me to comment on what do pollsters do, when they get one.

A recent Bloomberg poll in the US had Obama 13% ahead of Romney. The average of the public polls has the gap at around 1%. Mark Blumenthal writes:

The most likely possibility is that this poll simply represents a statistical outlier. Yes, with a 3 percent margin of error, its Obama advantage of 53 to 40 percent is significantly different than the low single-digit lead suggested by the polling averages. However, that margin of error assumes a 95 percent level of confidence, which in simpler language means that one poll estimate in 20 will fall outside the margin of error by chance alone.

This is worth remembering. One in 20 polls will fall outside the quoted margin of error. One of the challenges to being a pollster is what to do if you think one of your polls may be an outlier.

Bloomberg have done a statement on their poll, talking about what they did and didn’t do. This is a good idea, and they look at theories on why they got the result they did, such as:

Maybe you had a higher-educated respondent pool and they tend to like Obama. Maybe we did. Of all the theories, this one holds some water. The 2008 exit poll shows 24 percent with a high school education or less, compared to our 20 percent among likely voters; the 2008 electorate had 31 percent with some college, and we had 23 percent. In 2008, 28 percent of voters had a college degree and 17 percent more had some postgraduate education; we had 34 percent with a college degree and 21 percent with some postgraduate exposure. However, in our poll, every education subgroup votes for Obama over Romney.

We played around with the data to test whether our findings would have changed had our education distribution looked more like the 2008 exit poll. By “played around,” I mean we created a 52-cell weight variable accounting for age, race, and education. The presidential contest becomes a 10-point race: 51 percent for Obama and 41 percent for Romney. It is still a double-digit lead for Obama and would likely have created as much stir as our 13-point lead.

In the end they conclude:

In the end. We will soon know whether this poll is, in fact, an outlier. Potentially, this poll caught the electorate when the wind was at Barack Obama’s back for a brief moment in time.

If a pollster gets a response which is “way out there”, there are a number of things you can do.

1. Check the raw data. Audit a higher proportion of calls than normal.
2. Check the numbers add up. Sometimes human error can sneak in.
3. Look at your sample – is any group seriously under or over represented? Maybe all your Auckland responses came from Parnell?
4. Play with your weightings. As Bloomberg did, see if different weightings will materially impact it.
5. Check your questions. Was the script different to last time.
6. Check what was happening when you were in the field. If an All Black game was on one night, then your polled no rugby fans, and that could make a difference. Was there a final of a popular TV show?
7. Look at your cross-tabs. If one indicator moves (say party vote) but not another (say right vs wrong direction) then that may imply an unusual sample (the one in 20)
8. In extreme cases, you can always redo the poll. But it is a dangerous thing to throw a poll away just because you assume it is an outlier. In fact, you may be first to pick up a change or trend.

Ultimately, as Bloomberg says, it will become apparent in time if the poll was an outlier or not.

John Armstrong writes in the Herald:

So much for the theory that Winston Peters was mellowing into Parliament’s version of everyone’s favourite, if somewhat cranky and irascible, uncle.

It was a more familiar Peters who delivered the leader’s address at New Zealand First’s annual convention last Sunday.

The speech was not so much a dog whistle as a wolf howl for attention. There was certainly no coded language to decipher.

His pinging of Chinese immigrants for allegedly sponging off New Zealanders by picking up state-funded super payments and other entitlements without paying any income tax was unquestionably populist – so much so that he was almost parodying himself.

A lot of people view Peters as a benign joker like figure. I’m not one of them. I think he has a history of scape-goating, and trying to convince people that it is the fault of some other group that they can’t receive more money or jobs or benefits.

He instead rationalised his accusation of freeloading by arguing that New Zealanders needed to know all the facts about superannuation rather than being manipulated by the savings and insurance industry into believing there was a “crisis” which required an end to universality in the payment of the state-funded pension.

Peters knows that superannuation is not sustainable. He argued so in 1997, when he proposed compulsory superannuation, saying that people “do not believe that the current arrangements will be there to deliver the same level of assistance in retirement that their parents currently enjoy”. Even worse Peters proposes superannuation be made even more expensive, with an increase in the floor.

It actually did not add up at all. Peters is the one choosing not to put all the facts on the table, especially major Government policy changes affecting those applying for residency under Immigration New Zealand’s family and parent categories.

While Peters rails against Chinese immigrants supposedly gobbling up the super – but then refuses to say what he would do about it – the National-led Government has quietly stolen a march on him. …

What is clear is that imminent changes to immigration rules are going to screen out those unlikely to pay tax.

The parent stream is currently closed pending the introduction of a new two-tier category.

Those applicants earning more than $27,203 a year as singles or nearly $40,000 if they are a couple will be able to go into tier one. They will also have to bring with them at least $500,000 in “settlement funds”.

Their sponsoring adult son or daughter will have to have an annual income of at least $65,000 and have been a New Zealand resident for at least three years.

Those who cannot meet these requirements will go into tier two where the only financial obligation is a lower benchmark of nearly $34,000 in income required of the sponsoring adult child .

Tier one applicants, not surprisingly, will get priority. As do a separate category of parents who can gain entry if they invest a minimum $1 million in New Zealand for at least four years.

With a two-year wait already for applications to be processed and a capped annual limit of 4000 on the number of parents approved for residency, those in tier two could be waiting years to get to the front of the queue.

So in fact the Government has already acted to mitigate the issue that Peters talked about.

Peters also used his convention speech that day to climb into the council for calling for the age of eligibility for super to be lifted to 67.

Claiming the council would be pushing for the privatisation of super, he also rounded on its chair, his old bete noire Jenny Shipley, who openly campaigned against Peters’ proposed compulsory savings scheme while National was in coalition with New Zealand First in the late 1990s.

This is such a bending of truth, it is hilarious. Peters proposal in 1997 was to effectively privatise superannuation, and Shipley was a prominent campaigner against it.

The SMH reports:

THE former US vice-president Dick Cheney says he is delighted his lesbian daughter has married her long-term partner. Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, who have two children, were married in Washington DC, where gay marriage has been legal since 2010.

“Mary and Heather have been in a committed relationship for many years, and we are delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognised,” a Cheney family statement said. “Mary and Heather and their children are very important and much-loved members of our family and we wish them every happiness.”

The Republicans will not know what to do or say. Who amongst them wants to condemn the fact that their former VP’s daughter was allowed to marry her long-term partner?

Hat Tip: Whale Oil