A guest post by the Tertiary Education Union on the Performance Based Research Fund:

A recent report on the behaviour of New Zealand’s universities around research performance funding confirms a truism – you get what you reward. And when rewards for universities are based on their ability to generate research outputs, we should not be surprised at the lengths they will go to in order to be on top.

The Tertiary Education Commission confirmed last week that universities were gaming its performance research funding scheme (PBRF) to make sure they could get a higher ranking in the exercise than other universities. Universities have been changing people’s employment agreements, restructuring departments and people’s jobs and in some cases making teaching-focused academics redundant simply so that they can appear higher on a rankings ladder than other universities.

While institutions get no more tax-payer dollars from improving their rankings in the PBRF exercise, they are fighting for prestige – to be “New Zealand’s Leading University” or our “top ranked university for research quality”. This race for rankings was not the intent of the research performance exercise and the commission now believes the system warrants change.

But the commission faces a Herculean task in reforming PBRF while trying to remain true to the core principle of performance based research funding – that you can drive up research performance with the right competitive incentives.

One thing we have learned in recent years from universities is will take the most direct route to the cash and the rankings no matter what stands in their way (think Pamplona’s running of the bulls for the right mental image of universities pursuing performance funding).

A decade ago, when the incentive was ‘bums on seats’ tertiary institutions restructured courses and sucked students out of schools and other tertiary education providers onto their campuses. Some of the outcomes of this market model were positive – New Zealand has one of the highest tertiary education participation rates in the world. However, there were, as has been widely documented in the past, many perverse outcomes – from massive marketing budgets to the now infamous ‘twilight golf’.

So we identified the perverse outcomes of funding based on student numbers and declared the way forward was not about mass participation but about high-end research.

Student numbers were capped and a new competitive incentive introduced centred on published research ‘outputs’ (primarily peer reviewed articles in international journals written for the academic community). 

The aim was to calculate an aggregate research performance score for each institution in order to allocate them funding commensurate with their overall research performance.

TEU has no problem with rewarding excellence in our institutions, but research outputs are only one part of the work of tertiary education staff – academics also are responsible for teaching, administrative tasks, engaging in public meetings to share their knowledge, and so on.

Yet the lure of being ranked number one has meant universities have punished award-winning teachers; asked academics to shift their focus from community research to peer reviewed journals; and questioned the future of academics who perform vital administrative roles, because this takes time away from writing journal articles.

So how do we stop universities from narrowing the role of an academic down to ‘research’, when that is what is what the government rewards?

TEC has proposed changing the way the ‘rankings’ are put together, by only calculating the average quality score of tertiary institutions based on those staff who actually receive one of the quality scores (As, Bs, and Cs) and excluding those who (for a whole host of good reasons) don’t even reach the bar in this narrow performance measure.

This move will not help students who have lost their favourite university teacher, departments who have lost great administrative academics, or communities who couldn’t find an academic expert to attend a public meeting because they are all too busy writing journal articles.

It is a warranted action and will reinforce what the PBRF exercise was about and show institutions they should ‘play by the rules of the game’ with integrity. After all the rules are explicit: PBRF scores are not to be used for hiring and firing academics; not to be used for promotions or performance management. What PBRF aggregate scores are for is to provide an auditing and accountability tool that can help the government dish out the dollars ($1.6 billion over six years) to institutions.

However, changing the rules for calculating the average scores of universities is only a stopgap measure. What the latest report from the commission highlights are fundamental problems with designing performance measures in the tertiary education system. This means a much bigger debate is needed: how do we get the best out of our tertiary education staff?

TEU often argues that the evidence shows performance incentives do not work – you need only look at the mostly incentive-based packages of today’s CEOs to see that any chief executive not worth his or her salt is still clever enough to rort the system and generate an exponentially increasing take home pay. And the creative industries – such as major companies in Silicon Valley – are again realising that giving workers greater autonomy (rather than strict line-management) is the way to get great work from staff. Our worry is that the government sees the perverse outcomes of auditing measures like PBRF but thinks this can be solved by just adding in more performance incentives.

So instead of rethinking whether performance measures work in the tertiary sector, the government has set up a performance exercise looking at student retention and completion. For tertiary institutions the quickest route to achieving in this exercise is making sure students pass their courses. The simplest way to ensure students pass is to put pressure on academics to elevate grades (and in a few isolated cases this is already beginning to happen in a range of institutions across New Zealand).

Should we just sit back and hope that gaming is not so accepted by our tertiary providers, and that they will not pervert good credentialing (the awarding of qualifications) or research performance exercises just to be ranked number 1? Or should we review whether performance based funds really help us get the best out of tertiary education sector?

Only the commission and the government can decide where we head next, but to us it seems clear – the report into PBRF gaming shows it is time to sit down and talk about how we protect the reputation of our tertiary education sector and ensure that we are getting a well-rounded set of outcomes from universities. 

Dr Sandra Grey
TEU National President

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce also said:

But he has now revealed further reforms are planned for universities, including a review of the councils and a separate review of a the controversial Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). …

Joyce, meanwhile, said funding for engineering and the physical sciences would get a boost in the Budget.

Research would also get a boost, though a modest increase in funding to the controversial Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF).

The PBRF, set up under the previous Labour administration, has been the subject of allegations of rorting by universities hiding away their least productive researchers to maximise their share of the funding. There has also been growing concern about the amount of time wasted by academics tinkering with their PBRF portfolios.

While the PBRF had been ”broadly successful,” Joyce said there were problems which would be addressed in a review this year.

“Frustrating gamesmanship” needed to be addressed and the Government was also keen to look at introducing incentives for the commercial success of research.

”You make it [PBRF] all about [publishing] papers, so if somebody steps out of the system for a year to go and work on a commercial project somewhere, does that damage their PBRF score so that they can’t contribute to what the university is being asked to contribute to?” Joyce said.

There may be a way to introduce incentives to the PBRF process for commercialising research, he said.

”You’ve got to be careful because obviously, it’s fine in engineering and economics and science and things but it’s a little bit harder in humanities.”

So further change looks likely, but whether there will be agreement on what it should be is another matter.

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

FOR SALE: Last Friday, a hikoi of 5000 marched to Parliament to protest the Government’s plan to sell state assets. The vote in Parliament will be close. Which way will the small parties fall? Did the 2011 election give the Government have a mandate for a mixed ownership model? Was the prospect of asset sales not scary enough to voters? Why do we need to own these assets? Is privatisation a dirty word?

GIMME A LOAN: The zero budget has brought big changes to the student loan scheme. Students will have to pay back their loans more quickly. While access to student allowances is tightened. Are these changes unfair to the youth of NZ? Are the students of tomorrow paying the prices for the students of yesterday who haven’t paid their loans? The money will be reinvested in tertiary education—so isn’t this a good thing?

PLAYING POSSUM: Playing possum, the NZ drinking game, which has some Dunedin students boozing until they fall out of trees has made international headlines. So, perhaps a good sign we’ve got a bit of an issue with the drink? Here are some proposals from the Alcohol Reform Bill—split purchase age, sales ban between 4am-7am, and parental permission for under-18s to drink at a party. Will these changes do the trick? Do they go far enough? Or are we over-reacting to a few stupid apples who ruin the cider for the rest of us?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 9th of May. Our Panel: Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty, Labour MP Shane Jones, New Zealand First MP Brendan Horan and National MP Mark Mitchell.    Wednesday at 9.05pm and Saturday at 10.05pm | TVNZ 7

Ruth Porter writes in the Telegraph:

Today the pasty is fighting back, but it shouldn’t be. For years it has enjoyed a special exemption and privilege which it should never have had. Companies and consumers of hot pasties have benefited unfairly while fish and chip shop owners and consumers who preferred pizza have had to pay more. Through a strange anomaly bakery goods were exempt from VAT, the Budget changed that, but today Cornish MPs are objecting to the change. Other MPs are now complaining about another reform which will see certain types of caravans subject to VAT as well. …

Britain’s VAT system is a mess, with arbitrary exceptions all over the place. In recent years this has led to absurd legal battles over whether Pringles are crisps and whether Jaffa Cakes are cakes or biscuits.

A report from the think tank Reform showed how inefficient the current zero and reduced rates are. Citing evidence from the OECD and looking at how our system is one of the most complicated in Europe. They suggested exemptions total more than £30bn. This £30bn could be given back to people in more efficient tax cuts. …

Other countries like New Zealand manage perfectly well with a much simpler GST system. We should follow their example.

But we can not take our simple system for granted. The Greens and Maori Party want to bastardise it, and Labour campaigned last election on doing the same. It looks like that policy will be dropped, which is a good thing.

If you are interested in British politics you can follow Ruth on Twitter, @ruthoporter.

Labour MP Andrew Little reveals his views on employers. Think if a National MP referred to some unions as parasites.

Incidentally I would have though a parasite would be a union which deducts PAYE off its employees wages and then spends it on political campaigns instead of paying it to the IRD, as legally obliged.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR TO THE
INQUIRY INTO THE 2011 GENERAL ELECTION BY THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.

Maori Roll Enrolment

2. The Electoral Commission has suggested that the “Maori option” be run not after each census, but in the lead up to each election. I strongly oppose changing the Maori option timing from after each census to before each election.
3. This would encourage tactical enrolments as if a particular seat (either general or Maori) is seen as marginal, parties will encourage their supporters to swap rolls to try and win the seat. This can happen under the status quo, but would be far more likely when the option to swap is done in an election year.
4. It would also upset the electoral populations. The option is run after every census, so that it can be used to determine electoral populations and hence boundaries. Allowing people to then swap rolls after the boundaries are set could cause some seats to have extremely low or extremely high electoral populations.

Election Day and Advance Voting Restrictions

5. The Electoral Commission recommends removal of the polling day exemptions for party lapel badges and ribbons and rosettes in party colours. I agree that rosettes and lapel badges could be banned, but would suggest that party scrutineers be given name badges to indicate they are scrutineers not officials.
6. However I would not remove the exemption for streamers and balloons in party colours. We do not need to have a balloon or ribbon police.
7. I also oppose the recommendation to prohibit election advertising within 100 metres of an advance voting place. It is unfair to a party or candidate that may have booked a billboard at a location near an advance voting place, but also is impractical. In theory even newspapers with ads in them would have to be removed within 100 metres of an advance voting place.
8. The likely growing popularity of advance voting, along with the advent of social media, makes the current laws on election day communications somewhat outdated. I suggest a first principles review is done of what harms these restrictions are designed to prevent (such as undue pressure on people as they are about to vote), and then decisions made on what is a sensible level of regulation to minimize or prevent these harms.

Electronic Voting

9. I note that it is proposed that some local Councils will trial e-voting for the 2013 local body elections, and then in 2016 possibly have e-voting available for all local body elections. If this is concluded sensibly, then it may be possible to look at an e-voting option for the 2017 or 2020 general election.
10. As an interim step, I support the Electoral Commission intention to allow overseas voters to deliver their votes to the Electoral Commission over the Internet.

Allocation of List MPs

11. I agree with the recommendation that the High Court should be able to direct the Electoral Commission to recalculate the allocation of list seats, as a result of a successful electoral petition.
12. It would also be sensible to allow the High Court to direct the Electoral Commission to recalculate the allocation of list seats as the result of a by-election held immediately after the general election as a result of a candidate dying. This removes the incentive for a party to put up a dying candidate in a “strategic” seat.

Election Returns

13. I agree that a party or candidate who refuses to file a return should be able to be prosecuted for a corrupt practice. This removes the incentive to file no return rather than a false return.
14. However I would go in the other direction for late returns, and make this a minor infringement that results in an automatic modest fine (like filing your tax return late). It is silly to involve the Police in such minor issues.

Broadcasting Act

15. I agree with the Electoral Commission that the definitions of election programmes and election advertisements in competing Acts should be harmonized. My preference would be to remove the electoral broadcasting sections from the Broadcasting Act, and have then in the Electoral Act.
16. I repeat my earlier submissions than the ban on political parties purchasing their own broadcasting time is outdated and an unjustified restriction of free speech. Worse, it means that different parties have different effective spending limits as a party allocated less broadcasting spend than another, is unable to close that gap.

Role of the Police

17. I have advocated for over six years that the Police should be removed from their current role of prosecuting electoral breaches. I am pleased to see the Electoral Commission effectively come to the same conclusion.
18. In 2005 their investigations of electoral law breaches was arguably incompetent. Extremely basic errors in law were made, where they ignored strict liability and confused the difference between spending limits and who can authorize and advertisement.
19. In both 2008 and 2011 they did not investigate alleged offences in a timely manner. In fact we still do not know their conclusions on offences they were referred to them almost a year ago. I do not blame them for prioritizing other crimes ahead of electoral offences, but it is wrong that there is no timely and effective enforcement of electoral law.
20. I propose that the Committee recommend to the Government that they agree in principle that the Police be removed as the enforcement agency for electoral law, and that they consult on the preferred replacement model.

Referenda

21. It seems silly that every time the Government and Parliament wants a referendum they have to pass a special Act of Parliament to hold it, and decide each time what spending and other restrictions are appropriate.
22. I support the creation of an Electoral Referendum Act that will set out the laws for all future referenda.
23. The ERA could supersede the CIR Act by specifying the two methods of triggering a referendum are by way of petition (the CIR route) or resolution of the House of Representatives.

Date of Election

24. The early announcement of the election date was very beneficial both for election administration, and for creating a level playing field for all parties.
25. Based on this success, I believe it would be beneficial for the date of the general election to be fixed as being the last Saturday in November.
26. If in future a Government feels it has lost the majority of the House, then it would be incumbent on the House to find a new Government which has its confidence.

Communications from MPs

27. A number of MPs were referred to the Police for unauthorized election advertisements. As MPs will be aware, the authorization requirements apply over the entire three year election cycle – not just in the regulated period.
28. It is useful to consider the reason we have authorization statements – to make clear who is behind an advertisement. It is a transparency requirement.
29. The nature of parliamentary communications is that some of them will always be political in nature and hence possibly an election advertisement. This means MPs at present need to either refer all communications to the Electoral Commission, or stick authorization statements on everything they publish.
30. I believe that a simple solution would be to amend the Electoral Act to state that outside the regulated period, any publication put out in the name of a Member of Parliament, is deemed to be authorized by that Member of Parliament and does not need a promoter statement.

Minor authorisation breaches

31. In many cases where there has been a referral to the Police for the lack of a promoter statement, the breach has been technical rather than substantive – the identity of the promoter has still been very clear. I believe this is very different to a case where advertisements are done anonymously in an attempt to hide their promoter.
32. It would be sensible to allow the Electoral Commission to levy a small infringement fine for minor breaches, rather than require it to be considered in details by a prosecutorial authority, and possibly waste court time.

Donations

33. The donations regime seems to generally be working well. However it would be a boost to transparency to lower the level at which donations must be disclosed within 10 days from $30,000 to $15,000 – which is the disclosure level for annual returns. This should simplify requirements for political parties, and allow scrutiny of significant donations in a more timely fashion.
34. Political parties are having to track any donation above $15,000 anyway, so reporting them as they occur should not pose any difficulty. Perhaps the requirement to report within 10 days could be altered to reporting monthly, say by the 20^th of each month for the previous month.
35. It could also be worth requiring near-instant disclosure (say within three working days) for the month before the election. In 2008 two parties received very large donations just before the election and did not disclose them until after the election.
36. I would also submit that the ability to make anonymous donations through the Electoral Commission should be removed. A donor can donate up to $15,000 a year without public disclosure, which is sufficient for those wishing to donate without publicity. I am skeptical that the identities of those who donate anonymously through the Electoral Commission are a total mystery to the recipient parties. While it is a much more rigorous regime than the Local Electoral Act, it is difficult to have confidence that the identity of the donor is not able to be logically deduced from previous conversations with a party.

Thank you for considering this submission, and I look forward to appearing.

David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Mobile 2degrees will today launch a new offer that knocks down one of the biggest mobile data customer pain points by allowing customers to share data from one account.

“Shared Data” means a customer can use data from one account across a range of devices, or share that data with friends and family, provided they too are on 2degrees’ network.

Malcolm Phillipps, 2degrees’ chief marketing officer, said 46 per cent of mobile users now have more than one device while 72 per cent of those with a mobile data plan don’t use their full allocation.

Shared Data will address both of those issues and simplify account administration and payment for customers.

Now, many customers “tether” devices such as iPads, setting up a wifi network from their smartphones and using that for their tablet to avoid extra data charges. Shared Data means customers will no longer have to do that, said Phillipps.

This is a good initiative. To save money I tether my devices but it can be a hassle to bluetooth them together and to have them all with you. I’m currently with Telecom and Vodafone on contract but could consider 2degrees at some stage. Of course quality is also a factor. Telecom has been good for signal availability and strength.

Chris Trotter writes:

 I drove home with three conclusions:

One: the deeply cynical and self-destructive folly of Labour’s caucus in refusing to make Cunliffe their leader.

Two: the MP for New Lynn’s singular and radical understanding of the need to steer Labour into the new, fast-flowing tides of historical change.

Three: that if anyone can persuade the quiet suburbs of New Zealand to accept and embrace the need for change; it’s David Cunliffe.

If Shearer does not last the distance, the battle between Cunliffe and Robertson will be massive. It will be Auckland v Wellington and more.

The Herald editorial yesterday:

More than 40 per cent of the money that the Government puts into tertiary education goes directly to students as allowances, loans and interest subsidies. The average for such spending in OECD countries is close to 18 per cent. 

Steven Joyce said we have the most generous student support scheme in the world, except maybe Scandinavia.  We also have the most generous pension scheme in the world, as it has no income testing and no asset testing and is linked to the average wage.

The Prime Minister says the changes will be “modest”. That is as it must be. A sluggish economy would be done no favours if the repayment of loans became so onerous that graduates could not afford to take out mortgages and suchlike. Or if students denied allowances responded by taking on a great deal more debt. Modest adjustments ensure students and graduates will not be subjected to serious hardship. It says much for the scale of the spending, however, that such relatively small steps will save the Government tens of millions of dollars.

John Key says this saving will be reinvested in the research and teaching capabilities of universities to help raise their world rankings. That represents a change of tack. Previously, the Government had talked of transferring this money to universities to fund tuition for more students.

Not before time, it has recognised that something must be done about the sliding international ratings of the country’s universities, and that the throwing open of entry to them has been an important factor in this.

Also pleased to see Steven Joyce plans changes to the PBRF.

Stuff reports:

The Government’s plan to offer free long-term contraception for beneficiaries and their daughters is being labelled as an insult and intrusive to women’s right to have children.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett yesterday said contraception would eventually be fully funded for female beneficiaries and their 16 to 19-year-old daughters.

Oh my God how mean and nasty. Having taxpayers fund free contraception.

Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman Sue Bradford this morning said while the contraception was voluntary, it was “totally unacceptable” for the Government to get involved in women’s reproduction.

So Sue is arguing against any taxpayer subsidy for contraception for any woman? She should join ACT!

Bradford said the Government was persuading women to take contraception through sanctions, such as having beneficiaries who have an additional child on the benefit to look for work when that child was one.

“We believe that women in this country have the right to control their own reproduction,” she said.

They do. But taxpayers also have the right to say if you have half a dozen kids while on the benefit, we won’t keep paying for your choices.

Stuff reports:

Environment Canterbury is standing by its report that a maximum of 4000 litres of oil spilled into the Timaru harbour last weekEnvironment Canterbury is standing by its report that a maximum of 4000 litres of oil spilled into the Timaru harbour last week, despite claims by NZ First that as much as 40,000 litres was spilled.

NZ First yesterday called on Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Timaru port authorities to reveal the extent of last week’s oil spill, which, the party said, was a “major” volume.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said in a statement he had been “reliably informed” that 40,000 litres of fuel was spilled and that all that authorities would reveal was that it was a “significant” amount.

However, ECan’s South Canterbury on-scene commander for oil spills, Grant Finlayson, told the Timaru Herald on Thursday he estimated two to four tonnes of oil had spilled, equating to a maximum of 4000 litres.

Mr Finlayson said yesterday that figure had not changed.

Oh this is a difficult one. Do we believe the first hand account of the ECan on-scene commander or do we believe Winston’s “reliable information”?

Wow, this is so very hard.

A reader e-mails:

Hey David, was just reading about possible changes to student loans and was wondering why all young people not working don’t have to draw down a loan for a living allowance. Surely they are all expected to get a job in later life, and most should be able to pay back what they have taken from the State? Why should students be treated differently to their unemployed peers?

Personally, I think the parents income test doesn’t work and all young people not working should have to draw down a loan. Anyone with a child who is a student not getting an allowance has stories of other students with asset rich parents getting an allowance.

The concept could probably be taken further to anyone temporarily unemployed, but where would you stop? 

My son is living at home for free and studying.  We were even paying him a small allowance for a while but now he is drawing down his loan which is sensible since we still have a mortgage on the house. 

An idea worth debating.

Just published the latest monthly newsletter summarising the polls. You can subscribe to receive it by e-mail here.

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 56, April 2012

 April saw four political polls published – two Roy Morgan polls a 3 News Reid Research poll and a Herald Digipoll.

The average of the public polls has National 19% ahead of Labour, up from 18% in March. The centre-right has 63 out of 121 seats on the April average.

Australia has the Government 17% to 18% behind the Opposition on a two party preferred basis. Gillard’s approval ratings are at record lows with 63% disapproval.

In the United States Barack Obama is 1..9% ahead of Mitt Romney in the polls, but projected to be well ahead in likely electoral college votes. His re-election chances are now rated at 60%, down from 61% last month.

The Republicans remained favoured to keep control in the House (72%) and gain a majority in the Senate (63%).

In the UK the Conservatives are now 9% behind Labour, and were trounced in the local elections.

In Canada the Conservatives are still impacted by a fake robo-call scandal and the NDP is now level with them in the polls.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to stand out in both.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on Epsom, the 2011 Election, paid parental leave, the Sky City plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please e-mail [email protected] with your name, organization (if applicable) and e-mail address or go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

I’ve blogged the latest Roy Morgan poll at Curiablog. On that poll the Maori Party would hold the balance of power.

Theatresports is on every Sunday evening at Circa until the 1st of July. It features two teams of Improvisers, who compete against each other to amuse and entertain the audience.

A clapometer gives each team a score out of 10. Audience members provide key details for each round or skit, and the teams get to work.

The first round was very good, with the challenge being to do a rap rhyming with an audience supplied word. They can’t use the same word twice, and it can not be a swear word. Of course the first word suggested was “duck”. I was going to suggest “hunt”. They did really well rhyming on the spot. One team member has to provide the sentence, but leave the last word blank for the rest of the team to fill in, so it is about how obvious the missing word is.

The other rounds varied from mildly funny to incredibly funny. The cricket commentary on a streaker was sublime, as was the ballet about an eight year old’s high jump victory. A couple of the skits didn’t engage that well, and the audience input seemed peripheral. But the vast majority of the skits were hugely enjoyable, and a audience had a great time. It was a nice fun Sunday night’s entertainment.

Also very good was the scene with the puppet who was not allowed to become a Cardinal, and the slide show of Egyptian pickles. The Improvisers body language and contortions can be just as funny as the dialogue.

AP reports:

Socialist Francois Hollande defeated conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy to become France’s next president, heralding a change in how Europe tackles its debt crisis and how France flexes its military and diplomatic muscle around the world.

I was never a big Sarkozy fan, but Hollande’s policies may have an impact well beyond France.

Hollande inherits an economy that’s a driver of the European Union but is deep in debt. He wants more government stimulus, and more government spending in general, despite concerns in the markets that France needs to urgently trim its huge debt.

Will France join the PIGS? And Greece votes also:

Greek voters enraged by economic hardship have (overnight NZ time) deserted traditional governing parties in droves at elections, putting the country’s future in the euro zone at risk, according to an early projection by the Interior Ministry.

The projection, confirming a pattern in earlier exit polls, showed the two parties supporting an EU/IMF bailout that is keeping Greece from bankruptcy would struggle to form a workable coalition government.

To be blunt current Greek culture is very unhealthy, and they are architects of their own misfortune. While small incidents, the stories of a Kiwi traveller there are symbolic of their problems:

The next day I’m at the bus stop early to get back up to the top of Meteora but it doesn’t come. Like many things in Greece they have a real CBF attitude – and they wonder why their economy is rooted.

And:

The whole riot thing doesn’t really bother me though, as I’ve been informed most of it is just for the TV cameras and once they’re gone the rioters can be found a few blocks away drinking chi.

And:

I guess that’s hardly surprising, the Greeks do have a reputation for being lazy, but in a way it’s extraordinary given they were the ones to invent such things as democracy.

I first encounter this laziness when I visit the Archeology Museum primarily to see the Greek vase collection which takes up the entire first floor.

I’m ridiculously excited (nerdy I know) but ever since I studied them at high school I’ve been a little obsessed.

But when I get there I discover the collection is closed.

When I ask I’m told – “just because.”

So I ask someone else and they helpfully inform me that they didn’t feel like putting on enough staff to cover it today, even though it’s the weekend.

And while only a museum collection, it is symbolic of the country overall.

Back to Greeks being lazy… they have a equal CBF attitude when it comes to showcasing their most prized possession – the Acropolis.

Most days it closes at 3pm but somedays earlier – it just depends on how they feel.

I suspect that Greece will have to be thrown out of the Euro, and have their own currency devalue to very low levels, for Greece to realise the rest of the world won’t keep funding your lifestyle.

The Telegraph reports:

Michael Field reports at Stuff:

A millionaire naturalised Chinese New Zealander who used senior political connections to win citizenship has gone on trial in the High Court, Auckland, today on five charges linked to claims he created a false identity.

In a case that has been before the court for nearly two years, Yong Ming Yan, 41, has pleaded not guilty to five charges over claims he created a false identity in China to get citizenship.

Justice Timothy Brewer is hearing the case without a jury.

Originally Yan was charged with 12 offences but these, the court heard, had been reduced due to issues with evidence from China.

Yan, also known as William Yan, Bill Liu and Yang Liu, arrived in 2001.

He got citizenship with letters of support and lobbying from Labour’s Dover Samuels and Chris Carter as well as National’s Pansy Wong.

The Department of Internal Affairs opposed citizenship saying with two passports, two names and two birth dates they did not know who he was. Then Immigration Minister David Cunliffe over-ruled and granted citizenship.

I might be wrong but I thought it was Shane Jones who granted the citizenship, not Cunliffe. It was an Internal Affairs issue.

What we have never ever heard is why Jones ignored official advice to grant citizenship to someone whom he knew was facing criminal charges overseas and had multiple identities. Samuels, Carter and Wong did not know of this when they advocated for him so I don’t see a major issue there. But Shane Jones did know and granted him citizenship, with Samuels presenting it to him in the Labour Caucus Room.

Last week someone claimed that the increase in the drinking or purchase age in 1999 lead to more young people dying, and killing themselves. I do not have access to the long-term suicide stats, but do have the long-term youth mortality states (and suicide is the leading cause).

As one can see, the youth mortality rate has continued to drop since the late 1990s. Those advocating to raise the age seem to want to blame everything from climate change to youth suicide on it.

On Wednesday evening, an inaugural meeting of the New Zealand Political Polling Forum will be held at Parliament. This is an initiative of the Association of Market Research Organisations(AMRO). I’ve been a bit involved with bringing this together. I believe that polls have a very significant impact on our democracy and elections. They can act as a performance monitor on the Government and political parties. They help voters to decide if they think a vote will be wasted. They help voters decide whether to tactically vote. They even influence if people vote at all (as Electoral Commission research has shown). So there is a strong public interest in having public polls conducted to high professional and ethical standards, and also in having them reported in a useful way. The forum should be of interest to market research professionals, politicians, media, political scientists and others who are are politically interested. The forum starts at 6 pm on Wednesday, and there are effectively three parts to it.

1. A presentation by Assistant Professor Rob Salmond on the 2011 elections and the pollsters, but also on some current issues and global trends in polling such as diminishing landlines, Internet panel polls and the like. Rob also has some really good ideas for the media on how they can report polls in a more meaningful way.
2. A presentation by Murray Campbell of Baseline Research on the value of having a NZ Polling Code. I’ll comment on this in more detail below.
3. A panel Q+A with representatives of most of the major NZ political pollsters. Your chance to ask the experts.

If you are interested in attending, then let me know by end of Monday and I will see if I can get you added to the RSVP list. Technically it has closed for catering purposes but we should be able to get handle a few more people coming, if you have an interest in this area. The idea of some sort of NZ Polling Code is one I support, and it is one I hope can be formulated by both the market research and the media industries. Of course one could have the market researchers just write one unilaterally, but then it would probably be of less practical value. I hope that some of the media who attend, will show an interest in helping progress such a code. When I and others refer to a code, that doesn’t mean it necessarily has any regulatory standing, such as with the Press Council or the BSA. I prefer to see it as perhaps a “best practice statement”. The idea is that it will actually make it easier for media to report polls in a useful way.

Now the industry (AMRO and MRSNZ) do not yet have a formal stance of having a code, let alone started to discuss what might be the substance of any such code, and it isn’t the intention to try and do this on Wednesday. This is just about the start of a process. But I thought I might share some personal views on what might be some issues worth considering at the appropriate time.

1. Any report of a poll should include the number of responses, the dates surveyed and the level of undecideds as essential elements of the poll.
2. Reports from market researchers should clearly indicate the exact questions asked, and the order the questions were asked in.
3. Media organisation should place a copy of the full reports on their websites, after initial publication or broadcast.
4. The term “poll” should be used only to refer to random non self-selecting exercises, and the term “survey” for other exercises such as text in responses, or web surveys.
5. An archive of previous poll results should be publicly maintained (maybe by AMRO?)

Now again these are just my views, and just my initial views. Others will have different views. The purpose of the inaugural forum isn’t to get into a big debate on any of the above, but to see if there is agreement that it would be in the public interest to have a code, and who wants to be involved.

Worth noting that while there is no specific code for political polling, members of MRSNZ and AMRO follow the international code of ethics developed by ESOMAR (the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research).

We have a good range of people coming along on Wednesday, including MPs, press gallery, pollsters, Stats NZ, academics etc. It is in the State Banquet Hall, so if you are in Parliament you can just drop in. There’s even some food and drink before it starts. I’ll blog afterwards how it goes. As I said, I think it is a very worthwhile initiative.

Stuff reports:

The former president of the Waikato Students’ Union, Denis John Tokunai, appeared in Hamilton District Court earlier this week facing a charge of theft from December.

It is alleged he stole a laptop worth $400, a smartphone worth $700, as well as keys and a swipecard worth $55 – all the property of the students’ union.

Tokunai is being considered for diversion and will reappear in court in July.

He was ordered to surrender his passport.

Noting the charges have not been proven yet (but talk of diversion suggests they are not contested), I point out Mr Tokunai submitted against the VSM bill, citing all the things which will be lost if there is no WSU. I guess that includes a laptop and a smartphone!

A sensible post by Throng on TVNZ7:

Q. Does Throng believe TVNZ7 should be saved?
A. No.

Q. Does Throng believe there should be a Public Broadcasting TV channel?
A. Yes.

This is also my position.

So with such positives, why do we not support TVNZ7 being saved?  The primary reason is due to the first four letters of the channel’s name.

When the Labour government established both TVNZ6 and TVNZ7 and the channels were launched on the Freeview platform, there was much fanfare about an alternative to subscription-based television. However, due to the poor broadcasting policies of both the former and current governments, TVNZ has found itself caught in the middle of striving for commercial success and being a public broadcaster.  The reality is that they simply cannot do both.

TVNZ were never going to drive viewers away from their highly rating, ad supported channels.
TVNZ7 was doomed to near invisibility and the critics’ ire.

Exactly. Again this is a point I have often made. Those who mindlessly call out to save TVNZ7 are being reactionary. A public service channel should have nothing to do with TVNZ (which personally should be sold, with the capital going into a proper public service broadcaster).

It is time the confusion was ended and there be a separation between TVNZ’s role as a public broadcaster and a commercial entity.  If they are there to make a profit, let them do it but let’s not pretend any longer that they can do that and have success as a public broadcaster at the same time.

Indeed.

This revenge song by Kim Dotcom is pretty funny. But even funnier was that when I watched it, the Google Ad which came up was for Hong Kong hotels 🙂

I’ve prepared a table below showing what the net income will be for graduates with student loans, after the changes take effect, and comparing them to the impacts of tax cuts.

The six columns are:

1. Net income after tax and student loan deductions in April 2008 before tax cuts
2. Net income after tax and student loan deductions in October 2008 after Labour’s first round of tax cuts
3. Net income after tax and student loan deductions in April 2009 after National’s first round of tax cuts
4. Net income after tax and student loan deductions in October 2010 after National’s tax switch package. To recognise the increase in GST, a 2% deduction is made from net income.
5. Net income after tax and student loan deductions in October 2012 (presumably) after the student loans repayment rate lists from 10% to 12%. Note this still includes the GST adjustment.
6. The difference between Oct 2012 and April 2008, before tax cuts started to occur.

This shows that all graduates will have higher net incomes than in April 2008, even after the repayment rate increases. In fact they will also have higher net incomes than in October 2008 and in April 2009.  So all graduates will still have higher net incomes than before the tax switch, and considerably more than before the other tax cuts.

The other factor of course, is that you keep the tax cuts for ever. The additional student loan repayments means you pay the loan off quicker, and end up paying the same amount – just over a shorter time-frame. It will means things are tighter for graduates while the loan is repaid, but still not as tight as if we hadn’t had tax cuts.

The Greens have suggested that the repayment rate should increase as income increases. I think there is some merit to this. You could have a 12% repayment rate from $20k to $70k and say a 15% rate above $70k.