This is a guest post by Ben Land-Maycock, the President of the Vic Uni Law Students’ Society. Unlike some of the other student associations who are trying to rort VSM, VUWLSS has done exactly what all the student associations should do do – make sure you are providing value to your members. Ben’s post:

The Victoria University of Wellington Law Students’ Society (VUWLSS) exists to support and enhance the legal education of our members. We do this through a number of channels – representation and advocacy, organising educational and social activities, and running legal competitions.

The introduction of voluntary student membership (VSM) posed a significant challenge for our organisation – one that took weeks of thought to properly deconstruct, analyse and solve. We had to restructure our operations to ensure that we could continue to exist as a going-concern. But, despite the intensive workload, I believe VSM has been a good thing for our organisation.

Our pre-VSM structure leaned heavily on the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (VUWSA). In fact, 30% of our total revenue in 2011 was a grant from VUWSA from their membership levies. The remainder of our revenue comprised ticket sales (50%) and sponsorship (20%).

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this structure. It isn’t evil in and of itself. It certainly made life easier for Executives – as any large, guaranteed annual revenue stream would do. However, in my opinion, it didn’t incentivise accountability nor innovation – two factors I consider very important to all organisations.

Having an accountable organisation under this structure relied only on individual Executives agreeing to run the organisation accountably and responsibly. If they failed to, members had little recourse. They could choose not to come to our events, but their money would still finance our operations, through the VUWSA grant, as long as they remained at University.

Additionally, though I am incredibly proud of the achievements of past Executives, innovation relied solely on individual motivation. As an organisation, we didn’t have to innovate – revenue would flow in regardless.

Innovation and accountability should be incentivised. They should be necessary. For all its ease and security, our pre-VSM structure didn’t incentivise accountability to our members and innovation in our operations and opportunities to the extent that a proper structure should.

In 2012, by virtue of the introduction of VSM, VUWSA no longer charges a membership fee. For our purposes, this meant that the grant that formerly made up 30% of our total revenue was gone. We could apply for club funding through the University, but this was capped at $3,500.

We were now at a juncture. We could spend our time railing against the lost funding and not seize the opportunity to change our organisation for the better, or we could get busy coming up with a viable model for operating in the new environment. We chose the latter.

After considering a number of options, we moved to a tiered membership model. We will continue to, and should always, represent and advocate on behalf of all law students at Victoria University of Wellington. But we have also sliced out a tier of membership that if our members see real value in, they can choose to purchase. In 2012, $20 entitles you to a membership card that gets you discounts at business around the law school, cheaper entry into our events, and preferential ticket purchasing.

There is nothing revolutionary in how we have restructured. I’m no visionary and these are all very simple ideas and standard models of how other organisations currently function. But, the real change has been that our new model incentivises accountability and innovation where our previous one did not.

Our projected revenue for 2012 comprises: membership fees (40%), ticket sales (40%), and sponsorship (20%).

Importantly, our members now directly control 80% of our revenue. If the organisation is not run accountably, members can punish us – as they should be able to. It’s their money we’re spending after all. VUWLSS now either spends our members’ funds responsibly and valuably, or it dies. We exist to support and enhance the legal education of our members, and now they can actually properly hold us to account for that.

Finally, the post-VSM structure encourages us to be innovative as an organisation. We have to demonstrate real value to our members to earn their funds. Re-inventing the wheel annually isn’t going to cut it. This year alone we have launched a new website where we can retain institutional knowledge for our members, and expanded our activities in both the educational and social rubric. These were ideas that the new environment forced out of us, and not something it should apologise for. Innovative ideas and individuals will always exist in organisations. Our new structure, though, means that we are encouraged to find and support them.

VSM meant a summer of hard work. It took us out of our comfort zone. But VSM also provided the impetus for us to move to a model that extracted more out of us as an organisation. We have better empowered our members with control over our future and we will have to continue to offer them real value in supporting and enhancing their legal education. I think that is a reality to be welcomed.

VUWSA itself, and other student associations, should follow the lead of VUWLSS. By going for a zero fee, and scrounging off VUW, they are saying we do not wish our income to be linked to the quality of the services we provide to students.

I hope VUWLSS is successful, and that many law students join up as members if they do a good job.

UPDATE: One negative for VUWLSS though. A law student tells me that their constitution claims all law students are members, regardless of whether they pay to be “full” members. This is wrong, and I suspect illegal. I have another post coming on this practice. But still kudos on everything else they are doing.

Paul Buchanan blogs at Kiwipolitico:

Former Police Minister Annette King says that she and her cabinet colleagues were not informed about Operation 8 until the night before the dawn raids. …

Annette King expects us to believe that she, as Police Minister, had no clue about a police operation that was going to invoke the TSA for the first time, not against foreign terrorists but against a collection of well-known domestic dissidents with long histories with the Police. She expects us to believe that Helen Clark, the micromanaging, all-knowing Prime Minister and Minister for Intelligence and Security, had no clue about Operation 8 even though the TSA was used to justify the electronic surveillance of the suspects a year before the raids, that SIS assets were used to that end, and that the raids would be carried out on Tuhoe land as well as in cities (a delicate political issue, to say the least). 

Paul raises some interesting points. Maybe they were only told that the exact operation was occurring the next day, but I suspect some Ministers would have known of the overall investigation for much longer than that.

She wants us to believe that then-Police Commissioner Howard Broad, well known for his ties to the the Prime Minister, did not utter a word about who was targeted and why until less than 12 hours before the cops rolled.

She would like us to believe that with the possible exception of the PM, no one in the 5th Labour government was aware of Operation 8 until October 14, 2007. This, even though multiple agencies were involved and the lead-up  to the raids was over a year in the making.

Yeah Right.

King’s interview has raised more questions than it has answered.

The Herald reports:

Police will not lay charges against freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose over the so-called “teapot tapes” affair, Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess says.

He said police will issue Mr Ambrose with a warning after referring the matter to Crown Law.

“While police have issued a warning in this instance, we are clear that the actions of Mr Ambrose were unlawful.” …

“One factor taken into account is a letter of regret from Mr Ambrose which has been sent to the Prime Minister and Mr Banks. They have both indicated acceptance of this statement.”

This seems a reasonable outcome. It is useful to have the clear opinion of the Police that the actions were unlawful. Without that, it would give the media open licence to leave concealed recorders all over the place.

Stuff reports:

While he only received a warning, Ambrose’s actions were illegal, Burgess said.

Future occurrences were likely to be prosecuted.

“We were satisfied on this occasion that there was (prima facie evidence).

But police decided there was not sufficient public interest in the matter going to court, he said.

“I reached the view that a prosecution was not required in this instance.”

The same grounds on which Helen Clark was not prosecuted.

The expense return from National tells us quite a bit about what mediums they chose to advertise in, which is interesting to analyse.  I’ve summarised and compiled them in descending order.

So billboards were the largest expense item, which is no surprise as they have been a hallmark of the 2005 and 2008 campaigns also. The contractors were next largest item followed by the final fortnight newspaper ads in all metro and provincial daily newspapers.

The taxpayer may pay for the airing of the TV and radio ads, but National paid almost $200,000 to produce them.  Pamphlets and Direct Mail were then next largest costs.

A fairly significant proportion of the budget was spent on Internet advertising – over $110,000. And the bastards didn’t spend a single cent on advertising on Kiwiblog 🙁

Someone did well out of the campaign song at almost $80,000.

Over $25,000 spent on auto phone calls. Personally I hate them and think they piss people off and cause them to not vote for you. But having said that it would be interesting if National measured turnout rate amongst those who got and did not get an auto phone call to see if they had an impact.

When you look at what you get for $2 million, it isn’t a lot. I don’t think anyone can claim our spending limits are too high, when they are less than $1/voter. The majority went on four newspaper ads, 97 billboards, two pamphlets of which one was direct mailed, and some Internet advertising. This is hardly drowning the voters in advertising.

I’ll be doing a similar analysis for other significant parties.

A guest post from a commenter who has worked in the public service:

Frontline vs. back-office

The slogan “more frontline, less back-office” is, on the face of it, hard to argue with. Who wouldn’t want more services for the same (or less) money? Unfortunately, reality is a little bit more complicated than that, and the recent move by the government to sharpen service delivery through cutting “back-office functions” is short-sighted and likely to fail.

The term “frontline” comes from the military. We have a term: “tooth-to-tail ratio”. This means the number of “trigger pullers” versus the number of support personnel. In a military sense, there is a sweet spot – where the tail far outnumbers the teeth. For every frontline rifleman or tanker, you’re likely to have at least ten (and likely a lot more) support personnel. Every fighter pilot has thirty to fifty personnel supporting him. Incredibly inefficient? Not at all. History is full of examples where forces with a heavy tail-to-tooth ratio were incredibly successful: Germany 1939-1941, or the US Army 1944-1945 for example. And history also has some classic examples where the tooth got too big, and there was not enough tail – Germany 1944-1945, for example. In simple terms, there is a sweet spot of “frontline” and “rear area” staff. You can’t get more effective by changing the ratio; if you want to upsize or downsize, you still keep the ratio the same. You rescale from the corner.

So, if the government wants to use a military term, it needs to realise it’s using it incorrectly. And it needs to realise that ratios are what matters; if it wants to spend less, shave a little off everywhere. Because the concept of “frontline” is an amorphous one. We’d all agree the cop on I-car responding to calls for service is frontline, right? But what about the cops in the organised crime squads, who undertake proactive investigations (those without a public call for service)? What about the scene of crime officers (civilians) who attend the scenes? What about the fingerprint examiners back in the labs? What about the intelligence analysts who produce the “hotspot” maps showing where burglaries are skyrocketing, or disorder problems are emerging? What about the workforce co-ordinators who set the shifts for their squads? What about the analysts at Police HQ working out which boots are best, or when Tasers should be used, or the best way of keeping weapons safe? Which of those are “frontline”, and which of those are “back office”?

That’s half the story. In human resources and finance, I have no qualms with calling them back office, but is cutting them efficient? The public sector reforms of the 1980s, instigated by Roger Douglas and co, had a beautiful theoretical simplicity at their core: managerial responsibility and contracting. Here’s the thing. The more you take away from managers in terms of human resources and financial control, the less responsible they are and the less accountable they can be held. Shared services would be anathema to Douglas and co in those heady days (as someone who would never vote Act, I at least respect the intellectual strength of those early positions). The micromanagement of the current National government would also be anathema to them, who believed in contracting for a service from a department and letting the department decide how to do it. Indeed, the micromanagement of the current government has also been replicated within individual government departments, which are becoming increasingly dictatorial and driven from the centre. Rather than flexible government departments that evolve and adapt to specific conditions, we are seeing the re-emergence of 19^th century style “mega bureaucracy”, with policies and procedures set by diktat at the top, with Chief Executives managing down a dozen levels on hiring decisions. Is this what we want?

I can only speak from my own expertise. The cuts in the NZDF, the flawed “refocusing of the back-office”, have hindered the military capability of that force across the entire spectrum. As Napoleon said, in war morale is to the physical as three is to one; and believe me when I say that morale in that force is absolutely shot to death. In the Police, all the current government seems to focus on is “more front-line cops.” I can only speak as someone with substantial research experience in the field: more front-line cops has little or no effect on crime rates. Full stop, end of story. More complex, more sophisticated reforms (whether community oriented policing, problem oriented policing, or intelligence-led policing) may have some effect, but they do not rely on stripping the back office to put more cops out there responding to calls for service, which is a discredited, 1960s model of policing. If back office functions are cut, we will have fewer people thinking about policing (or any government service) and more people doing. Again, it sounds good on the surface, but there is no point in a lot of activity if it has little or no effect on your goals. I don’t have specific knowledge, but I would guess adding more social workers and more doctors is also pointless unless there is careful direction as well.

I will leave with a quote from Major General Robert H. Scales, U.S. Army, (retd). Talking about the British army during the 19^th and early 20^th century, he said:

“The reckoning came at the battles of Mons and Le Cateau in 1914, when this army disappeared under the guns of a force that had spent the last half-century studying war rather than practicing it. The cultural bias toward action rather than reflection so permeated the British Army in World War I that the deaths of more than a million failed to erase it. Some scholars contend that this tragic obsession still left its dulling mark until well after World War II.”

Our current government’s own bias towards action rather than reflection will also have negative results.

As with most guest posts the views within are not necessarily my own.

Labour are saying that Nick Smith may have intervened on behalf of other friends, and that there needs to be an inquiry to determine this. Personally I thought his letter on behalf of Pullar made it pretty clear how reluctant he was to do anything. But it has also dawned on me that the fact he actually wrote a letter actually strongly implies that he was not trying to improperly influence things for Pullar. Why? Well, because he did in fact put it in writing.

If Nick had really been trying to screw the scrum for Pullar, the last thing he would have done is sign his name to a letter acting as a referee for her health before her accident.

If a Minister wants to push a department or agency in a particular way, they do not leave fingerprints. This will be officially denied, but ask any former Ministerial staffer from either party.

If Nick had really wanted to get ACC to give Pullar special treatment, he would have had his minsierial advisor phone the CEO. The ministerial advisor would say something like “The Minister is very concerned about this case”. That is code for “fix it”. They might say stuff like “The Minister is concerned that this could become a high profile story” and “The Minister wants to protect the PM who is constantly getting lobbied on this issue” or “The Minister thinks it would be prudent to assure yourself that the claimant has got everything they are entitled to, and has not been disadvantaged by ACC’s actions”.

Now none of this changes the fact that Nick’s actions in writing the reference were not acceptable. But in terms of motivation, I do think that they do show his intention wasn’t to apply improper pressure on ACC.  He was trying to placate Pullar. Otherwise he could have just got one of his staff to make a discrete phone call.

And no, I am not saying that agencies will break the law or even their own policies just to please a Minister. However many decisions are subjective and can go either way. It is in those situations, that Ministerial desires can have an impact.

Stuff reports:

A Wellington woman has been handed a four-year, 10-month jail sentence in Argentina after being found guilty of drug smuggling.

Sharon Armstrong, 54, was arrested at the airport in Buenos Aires on April 13, 2011, after 5 kilograms of cocaine was discovered in the false bottom of her suitcase.

Armstrong is the former deputy chief executive of the Maori Language Commission. She had been working as a contractor for Maori education and language company Haemata, based in Wellington, since February.

She had picked up the parcel in Argentina while on the way to meet her internet boyfriend in London.

Armstrong denied knowing the cocaine was in her bag and says she was duped into carrying it.

I’m unsure as to whether or not Armstrong was criminally stupid, or just a criminal.

It is hard to imagine a degree of stupidity where you agree to carry a parcel given to you in Argentina, to someone you have never met.  But people do sometimes suspend all common sense when they are in love.

But the reality is that regardless of motivation, Armstrong almost inevitably had to be found guilty. You can’t let drug smugglers off just because they say they didn’t know what was in the package. It is your responsibility to check, or at least to be able to say whose package it is.

Hopefully this will be a lesson for others. Never take stuff for others over borders, unless you totally trust the person you are doing it for. And never trust someone you have yet to meet!

The Mercury reports:

The Greens’ hero was met with a standing ovation when he delivered the 2012 Green Oration, which called for a single global and democratic parliament.

“Let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value,” he said.

Senator Brown said he would call on the world’s 100 Greens parties to back his “earth parliament” at the third global Greens conference in Senegal next week.

So which Green MPs are attending the global Greens conference and will they be voting in favour of there being one global parliament under one person, one vote, one value.

Under one person, one vote, a majority i the global Parliament would be held by representatives from China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia and Bangladesh.

In one sense I  have some agreement with Senator Brown. It would be nice to have a global Parliament, so there are no trade barriers etc. Ironic, as the Greens are the most protectionist party around.

But it could never happy with so many countries presently governed by repressive regimes. It would just extend that repression to the planet. And God knows how many things the Greens would try to ban on a global scale, if there was a global Parliament.

What I would support is a super-parliament of democratic countries. Only countries with true democracies, with freedom of speech and religion, with a free media could join.

I’ve had forwarded to me a number of documents and reports from within Victoria University over its attempts to what can only be called a rort of the PBRF, or Performance Based Research Fund. The TEC says that:

The primary purpose of the PBRF is to ensure that excellent research in the tertiary education sector is encouraged and rewarded. This entails assessing the research performance of TEOs and then funding them on the basis of their performance.

As I will detail below though, in fact it seems the universities gain funding on the basis of their ability to manipulate employment contracts.

The annual value of funding from the PBRF is around $500 million, so universities are highly incentivised to maximise their share of it. Sadly it seems that rather than encouraging academics to do more and better research, VUW (and probably others) have unleashed the HR Department to try and manipulate their results. The ironic thing is that if all universities do what VUW does, then no university actually gains a comparative advantage.

A complaint was made to the VUW University Council by an Associate Professor in the Accounting Economics & Finance Department, who said what VUW was doing was effectively accounting fraud.  He gave eight examples:

1. Individual A, who is not active in research and who has a fixed-term contract maturing after June 2012, was asked to terminate this contract in favour of another one terminating in early 2012 coupled with a further contract starting in late 2012.  The effect of this would be to exclude A from the calculation of the University’s PBRF score in June 2012.  Individual A rejected this proposal on ethical grounds.      

2. Individual B, who is not active in research and had a series of fixed-term contracts with the last maturing in 2011, was offered at that time a replacement contract with a significantly shorter duration than before and that would mature in early 2012, with the effect that they would not be included in the calculation of the University’s PBRF score in June 2012.  B accepted this contract.    

3. Individual C, who is not active in research and has a conventional academic contract, was asked to temporarily depart from University employment in 2012.  The effect of this would be to exclude C from the calculation of the University’s PBRF score in June 2012.  C accepted this offer.  Within a week of Mr Corkill’s inquiry being set up, these arrangements with C were cancelled.

4. Individual D, who is not active in research and had a conventional academic contract, was asked to retire early and was offered a fixed-term contract for teaching work in 2012 with the contract period excluding June 2012.  The effect of this would be to exclude D from the calculation of the University’s PBRF score in June 2012.  D accepted this contract.

5. Individual E, who is not active in research and had a conventional academic contract, was asked to retire early and was offered fixed-term teaching contracts for early 2012 and a further period in late 2012, with the effect of excluding them from the calculation of the University’s PBRF score in June 2012.  E accepted this contract. 

6. Individual F, who is not active in research and had a conventional academic contract, was asked to retire early and was offered a fixed-term teaching contract for late 2012, with the effect of excluding F from the calculation of the University’s PBRF score in June 2012.  F accepted this contract.

7. Individual G was offered teaching contracts in 2012 with the terms of the contracts such that G would be excluded from the calculation of the University’s PBRF score in June 2012.  In addition, G was advised by a University manager that this PBRF consideration was the rationale for the terms offered and that the terms were chosen sufficiently well away from the June 2012 date to avoid suspicion.

8. A Head of School circulated an email to staff in their School advising them that academic staff members of a particular type counted for PBRF and instructed staff to therefore ensure that none of this type were employed on the June 2012 census date. 

There is also other stuff happening to massage the numbers, such as putting some staff onto teaching only contracts, so they get excluded. That is arguably more legitimate, but I struggle to see how having employment contracts that exclude the month of June, purely to avoid the PBRF census can be a correct or ethical thing to do. It also undermines the whole point of the PBRF.

The VUW Chancellor appointed a QC to investigate. His full report they refuse to release, but a summary was released. It is worth noting that his “advisor” was the Chair of the University’s Audit & Risk Committee. I regard that as a conflict. Members of the University Council naturally wish to maximise the funding for VUW. They would be concerned about behaviour that costs VUW money, but be motivated to take a tolerant view of unethical behaviour which gains VUW money.

The report summary is here – Corkill Executive Summary. A response to it from the Accounting Associate Professor Martin Lally is here – PBRF Allegations and Investigations-to dist list. Note that Martin Lally is not the person who supplied these to me. I have had no interactions with him at all. A response from the Chancellor is here, which basically tells him to go away and even declares he will not entertain further correspondence on the issue – Chancellor Letter 28 Feb.

If you bother to read the response from Lally, he points out that the summary is so lacking in details, that he can  not know whether or not his allegations are correct. VUW refuses to allow him the full report.

Further to the original allegations, there is then the e-mail below:

Now to be fair, this is not just happening at VUW. I understand there are complaints about this gaming happening at other universities also. Apart from the low ethical standard the universities are providing to students (Lally’s  concern is the university is doing something that he lectures students on, as being accounting fraud), it would be simpler if all the universities just agreed they won’t game their numbers, if the others won’t.  The amount of time and energy put into this gaming is significant. Every Department in every Faculty has to take part.

There are a lot of unhappy academic staff about this. Since I gained the original materials, I have spoken to several acquaintances who are academics and they all confirm that this is wide-spread.

I understand TEC are aware of all this. I can’t understand why they haven’t said “No you can’t sack a staff member in May and rehire them in July, just to make your PBRF ranking look better”.

This poses an issue for the Minister also. $500 million of taxpayer funds go towards universities and others through the PBRF every year. The PBRF was set up by (I think) the last Labour Government. The intention of it is good – that universities which are producing more research and better research gain more funding. I spent a couple of terms on the Otago University Council and recall that even at Otago, there were some academics who produced minimal original research. PBRF should be encouraging more original research.

But the gaming of the system must seriously bring into question whether the $500 million is going to the right institutions in the right proportions. In theory getting rid of staff for a month who are not doing much research doesn’t actually gain an institution more money directly (as I understand it), but it increases their relative ranking, which benefits them for decisions on other issues such as where new schools might be located, or attracting staff.

At a minimum, in my opinion,  the PBRF rules need to be reviewed to discourage such gaming of the system. Ideally there would be a proper external inquiry into all the universities, to discover how widespread this gaming is, and whether it it ethical and legal.

An incredible visual tool at this website, showing the Universe in scale.

You use a scroll bar to zoom in and out. The scale goes from 1×10^-35 to 1×10^27. At each stage, you see objects of that size and can click on them for more detail.

The smallest item is quantum foam, which is slightly shorter than a planck length.

After that then a neutrino, which is around a yoctometer in length, or 1×10^-24. After that top quarks, and finally at 1×10^-15 you get protons and neutrons around a femtometer in size. Actual atoms get seen at just before 1×10^-10.

At the other end we have Pluto at 2,300 kms, the Moon at 3,500 kms, the USA at 4,200 kms and then Earth at 12,700 kms. Jupiter is at 140,000 kms, and the sun at 1.4m kms or 1.4 x 10^9.

Then the distance from Neptune to the Sun at 4,5b kms, larger than any known star. Voyager 1 is 17b kms from Earth. At 26b kms you have the distance light travels in a day. Sedna, the most remote object in our solar system is 140b kms from the sun which is .014 of a lightyear. Sedna takes 10,000 years to do a rotation around the sun.

The Oort Cloud is around 2 light years in size, or 2×10^18. Our closest star, Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away. The Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is  10,000 light years in size, while the Milky Way is 120,000 light years.

After that you have the Virgo Cluster at 30m light years, and the Virgo Supercluster at at 110m light years. Finally you have the Observable Universe at 93b light years, or 9.3×10^26 metres.

It’s a great tool to get people interested in science. Lots of fun and interesting facts.

One of the little secrets in Wellington is there is a very nice walking path on the east side of the motorway. While you do get the noise from the motorway (less of an issue with an iPod), for a lot of it you get to walk through some parks and bush.

I normally start at the Katherine Mansfield Memorial Park and walk south along the path, crossing under and over all the Thorndon roads that cross the motorway. You then pass down behind Parliament and cross into the Bolton Street Memorial Park. Eventually the path ends at Aurora Terrace, which is where I normally turn around and head back.

Today I carried on up the Terrace a bit and then went into the Clifton Terrace Car Park. I had noticed what appeared to be a path around the Terrace tunnel that I wanted to explore.  From the car park a path follows along next to the motorway and then just before the tunnel there is a steep climbing path up to a little park on top of the tunnel. Quite a nice view from there.

Then you can move onto the west side of the motorway by a little bush track that takes you up to the Vic Netball Courts. Wasn’t quite sure the best way to get back from here so went exploring through Kelburn Park and a walkway down to Talavera Terrace. From there a walkway down to San Sebastian Road, connecting to Clifton terrace. From there you go along Tokyo Lane (a walkway) to Bolton Street, and then enter the Bolton Street Memorial Park again, going to the Seddon Memorial. From there cut pass Anderson Park to Tinakori Road, and along Tinakori Road back to where I started.

In total a 9 km walk, and some really nice scenery along the way. A few hills, but nothing tough. I might try doing it in reverse next time.

Bernard Hickey writes:

This week Roy Morgan published its annual State of the Nation survey showing a stunning rise in the wealth of New Zealanders aged 55 and over. …

The report confirms an extraordinary shift in the structure of wealth in New Zealand that raises huge questions for politicians, policy makers and voters for years to come. Anyone aged 30 or lower should look away now. It may prove too painful to read.

The gross wealth of those aged 55 and over has risen from NZ$188 billion in 2002 or 37% of total wealth to NZ$525 billion or 47% of total wealth. This growth was only partly due to a rise in proportion of the population who are 55 and over to 24.7% from 19.5%.

Stats Chat pinged the Herald for this, but Bernard is worse with use of the terms “stunning” and extra-ordinary.

To be fair to Bernard he did cover the key point that the elderly share of the population has grown also. But he says it is only “partly” due to this. Well let’s look at that.

The increase in the  share is a relative 26.7%. The increase in wealth share is a relative 27.0%. The population change accounts for the wealth share going from 37% to 46.9%, so the actual increase is either rounding or a real 0.1% increase. Not stunning and not extra-ordinary.

I do agree with Bernard though that universal superannuation at age 65 is not sustainable.

In a HoS story, they report:

But Vergne Wilson, whose wife left him for Smith, says the politician should not have resigned.

Wilson was married to Linley Newport for 10 years, before separating in 2005. The same year, Smith split from his wife of 20 years, Cyndy.

Smith and Newport’s paths had crossed in 2004, through Smith’s constituency work, and they became a couple a year after their separations. They married in 2009.

Wilson said he was disappointed to see Smith step down from his portfolios.

“It is sad that it has come to this because he has always acted with integrity and genuinely believes in what he’s doing.

“He is passionate about his job. He’s a hard-working guy and loves what he does.”

The trio continued to have a great relationship and Wilson visited the children in Wellington when he could.

“It really upsets me that the family is going through this. It is a huge upset for them.

“My kids love him and he has genuine affection for them. If your wife was going to marry someone else, you couldn’t pick a better guy or stepfather.”

Relations between fathers and step-fathers are often less than cordial. That’s very high praise from your partner’s ex.

Two seats are still in doubt, but they will not change the scale of the slaughter in Queensland. Labor were hoping to retain at least 20 seats, but they look to have gone from 51 seats to seven seats.  This means they do not automatically get recognised as an official party in the Queensland Parliament, with access to offices, staff and resources.

The LNP will have 78 out of 89 seats. Bob Katter’s Australia Party got two, and others got two.

In terms of primary vote Labor dropped 15.7% to 26.6% – around what NZ Labour got in our 2011 election. Instant run-off voting is harsher on losing parties, than MMP is.

The LNP got a very high 49.7% primary vote.  The Katter Party got 11.6% – more than the Greens on 7.6%.

Too early to know the two party preferred results but it may be over 60% for the LNP. Commentators have said that many of those who defected from Labor to Katter did not rank any candidate beyond their first, so their votes were exhausted, rather than preference back to Labor.

Labor look to be in opposition for at least two, maybe three, elections in Queensland (unless some major scandal).  They ran a dirty negative campaign against new Premier Campbell Newman, with former Premier Anna Bligh even declaring he will end up in jail over his business dealings.

Federal Labor also look set next year to run a similar campaign. Their only slogan will be to stop Tony Abbott. When Rudd challenged for the leadership, that was all he could talk about.

I saw concession speeches by Anna Bligh and Kate Jones (who lost her seat to Newman). Both seemed to me to be quite arrogant and defiant, with little of the contrition you would expect for such a massacre.  Left politicians always seem to retreat into talk of how proud they are of their values, as if other politicians are not. Jones was thought to be a potential replacement for Bligh, but is now out of Parliament. She is fairly typical of modern politics – elected at age 27 after working as a media advisor to two Ministers, and married to Bligh’s former media advisor. These career politicians tend to be very skilled at politics, but do not always have a lot of experience of the world outside politics.

The next elections in Australia are Northern Territory by August 2012 and ACT in October 2012 but hey are  of little importance. The only state election before the federal election is Western Australia in March 2013. The Liberal Party is currently 18% ahead of the Labor opposition there so a change of Govt is unlikely.

The vote in Queensland was primarily on state issues, but the scale of it will have Labor nervous, especially with NSW having had such a strong result also. If this sort of swing happened in the federal election, even Kevin Rudd would lose his safe seat.

Tony Abbott was on TV this morning saying that the Coalition will repeal the carbon tax, no buts and no ifs. When asked about the Senate, he said that he doubts Labor will want to be punished twice over the carbon tax but if they blocked it in the Senate he would do a double dissolution election.

An interesting article in the Guardian:

Some 7,700 UK drug users and 4,000 from the US and Canada took part in the detailed survey, carried out online in November. Respondents were asked a range of questions including what drugs they took, how often, and what the health and legal consequences were. It was conducted by the independent drug use data exchange Global Drug Survey, in association with the Guardian and Mixmag, the clubbing magazine and website.

One of the strongest underlying messages is that this group of drug users report as happy, healthy and educated, and feel at ease with their recreational consumption of a range of illicit substances from cannabis to ecstasy to cocaine. They are not in rehab, prison or in trouble with the law and do not take heroin or crack.

The mean age of UK respondents was 28. Nine out of 10 were white, three-quarters were in work and earning between £10,000 and £40,000. Some 55% were educated to degree level or above.

A key conclusion being:

Dr Adam Winstock, a consultant addictions psychiatrist and director ofGlobal Drug Survey, said: “This is the largest assessment of current drug use ever conducted. What is overwhelmingly tells us is that people are not defined by their drug use, but that the harms that drugs can have are defined by the way people choose to use them.

“The challenge for government and policy makers will be how to regulate and craft a public health response which remains credible and respects individual choice.”

Absolutely. Demonising all drug users as criminals is not good policy.

A guest post by Peter Freedman:

Life on a benefit, or pension is tough.

People of the rightwing persuasion think they know all about living on a low, fixed income. It is easy to sit in your Eastborne home, dabbling in painting, and thinking you know everything that should be done to the poor, isn’t it Lindsay Mitchell?

Or to sit on your wobble butt in Parliament, pocketing a six-figure ministerial salary, swanning around in your gas guzzler and declaring that because you “made  it” everyone else should make it, too, even though you’ve taken away most of the stuff which helped you to get along. Isn’t it, Paula Bennett?

Or to regale the masses with stories of about how your mother lived in a state house, but you rose to be a millionaire Prime Minister. Isn’t it Mr Key?

The people who know about living on a benefit are the beneficiaries themselves. I’m one and have been for a couple of years. I worked all my life. That I am on welfare is not my fault and I don’t like being there.

I don’t like not being able to live like other people just because I am sick. I don’t like not being able to take my wife for a night out or enjoy a movie or a drink. I don’t like being stuck at home because I have no money for petrol. I don’t like eating baked beans because I have no cash for food.

I can hear the righties now: Stop whining, get off your bum, be grateful that WE look after you……if that is your only response, don’t  bother, I’ve already heard it before.

Not only have I been a beneficiary, but I have also worked with beneficiaries as a budget adviser and food bank co-ordinator. So I think I know what I am talking about.

My experience is that beneficiaries are often the best budgeters of all. They have to be.

Every dollar, every cent, is stretched to breaking point. So are your nerves and your patience when you heard words like ”bludger” from people who should know better, but don’t.

Keeping the dole low might have some justification if you KNOW people on the dole don’t want to work.

PS: If you want to tell me about the dole bludger down the road who spends his life surfing on the taxpayer, or the solo Mum who keeps having kids to stay on the DPB, I’ve heard it all before and I’m not interested. I want solutions, please, not third hand stories about your uncle’s cousin’s mother-in-law’s next door neighbour’s  grandson. I don’t care, Okay?

But there is no justification in treating invalids as if they have no value. And that’s what governments in both NZ and Australia do, Labor, Labour, Liberal or National. They are all the same. It is not good enough and it has to stop.

A benefit gives you just enough to survive on. I use that word deliberately. Starving is not living.

As NZers living on the benefit in Australia we receive income from Centrelink every fortnight and from WINZ once a month. The WINZ payment has to be converted to $AUS. Sometimes this benefits us with a few dollars extra.

When that happens, Centrelink reduces our income to compensate. But do they do the opposite thing if the conversion rate works against us? Oh, dear me no.

For luxuries we have Austar, the cheapest possible package. Beats staring at the walls when you can’t go anywhere because the gas tank is empty.

I know a few pensioners in Australia and they admit what they do to make ends meet. They shoplift from supermarkets.

Oh, dear, I can hear the righteous right clacking their dentures already.

I don’t condone theft, but I do understand it. One of my mates has a wife who was recently told she was deficient in Vitamin D. Her doctor did not advise sitting in the sun, the strongest on earth, and recommended using Vitamin tablets.

Yeah, right, at 50c each! So my mate sneaks along the supermarket aisle, waits till no-one is looking, grabs a packet and sticks it in his pocket.

He isn’t proud of what he does, but is not ashamed, either. He does it to survive.

So if you want to know what it is like on a pension or a benefit ask the people who know. Tell Lindsay Mitchell, Paula Bennett and John Key to go stuff themselves.

Personally I see little difference between condoning something and saying you understand it in a sympathetic tone.  It’s like the person saying “I don’t condone domestic violence, but boy does that sheila get naggy, and it is the only way to make her listen”.

Sir Paul Callaghan succumbed today to his colon cancer.  Probably not a household name, but he was one of the greatest scientists.

He was made a Professor in his 30s and later established the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology. Amongst his many prizes were the Ampere Prize and Rutherford Medal. He was the Kiwibank 2011 New Zealander of the Year.

His full list of qualifications and honours were BSc(Hons) DPhil DSc Oxf GNZM FRS FRSNZ FInstP FNZIP.

He wasn’t just a scientist though, but also was an expert in the commercial use of science and technology.

Condolences to his family and friends.

Hat Tip: Larry Willmore

NewstalkZB reports:

Kazakhstan’s shooting team has demanded an apology from Kuwait after a spoof national anthem from the satirical movie Borat was played at a medal ceremony instead of the official version.

The blunder took place as Maria Dmitrienko stood on top of the podium to celebrate her gold medal performance at a shooting championships in Kuwait.

But instead of the Kazkah national anthem, Dmitrienko had to listen to the song used in the 2006 smash hit film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

Here is a link to the official anthem, and the Borat one is embedded below.

Incredible they could get it mixed up. I can only imagine someone stuck it in their files thinking Kazakhstan would never win a medal at anything!

Sigh – another sloppy story.

The Herald reports a NewstalkZb story:

Auckland’s Local Boards are demanding action on the ports dispute.

More than 30 members have told the Council it’s time to stop sitting on its hands, and step in.

Board member Michael Wood says the port’s management and board are out of control, and exposing the city’s economy to an enormous risk.

The Boards have not demanded anything. 30 assorted board members (most of whom will be union backed Labour Party candidates or activists like Michael Wood) have demanded something.

There are a total of 148 local board members, so this Labour Party grouping represents around 20% only.

I imagine we will get results late tonight, but the outcome seems beyond doubt – that the Liberal National Party will form the Government.

The main interest will be in how many seats Labor lose. They have 51 of 89 seats currently, and may struggle to retain even 20 seats. Senior federal Labor MPs have started to appeal to voters not to turn Queensland into a one party state.

Queensland is the only state without an upper house incidentially.

The Dom Post has published the list of grievances that Bronwyn Pullar has against ACC. They are:

1. Repeated non disclosure of correspondence regarding Bronwyn’s claim when requested.
2. Extensive disclosure of other claimant’s information to Bronwyn
3. No ability to restrict unauthorised access by 2500+ ACC staff and contractors to files, or medical files
4. Medical records (considered in law to be the most sensitive of personal information) are not given protection which is appropriate to their status and are treated as general documents.
5. Lack of procedure around dealing with statements of correction to incorrect reports
6. Threats of legal action against Bronwyn’s GP for refusing to disclosure non-injury information. Misuse of criminal provisions in ACC legislation.
7. Collection of information for an unlawful purpose
8. False written and oral statements by ACC staff with the purpose of unlawfully procuring medical reports for pecuniary purposes.
9. Defamatory statements by ACC employees
10. Exceeding lawful powers by investigating injuries for which no claim has been made.
11. Derogatory emails by ACC staff
12. Excessive Access to Bronwyn’s files – 1948 accesses within 3 ½ years, by about 150 different individuals, of which 1100 were in a single one year period.
13. Staff accessing files against management instructions
14. ACC167 Consent – used to coerce claimant’s into authorising otherwise unlawful collections of information.
15. Collection of personal information without claimant’s knowledge &/or attempted collection without knowledge
16. Collection and attempts to collect information unrelated to injury/claim
17. Imbalanced and biased decision making by Corporation
18. Covert/inappropriate communication to assessors which bias & negatively influence outcomes against claimants
19. Decision making without reviewing EOS
20. Lack of workability of electronic medical file for lawfully compliant decision making
21. Coercion, Harassment & Bullying, Unreasonable approach in management of claims. Use of threats of disentitlement to coerce
22. Dictatorial approach of Case Managers, failure to make reasonable accommodations for claimant needs.
23. “cherry picking” of unfavourable phrases from medical reports which contradict the ultimate conclusion.
24. ACC abusing its monopoly position by limiting the pool of qualified medical assessors to a select group (some individuals assessors are paid up in excess of $1 million annually for services), leading to the appearance of bias and unfair market practises.
25. Failure to demand adherence of staff to State Services Code of Conduct and to take appropriate action for  breach
26. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to independently investigate complaints
27. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to follow a reasonable process when conducting investigations
28. Failure of Office of Complaints Investigator to validate the responses provided by ACC with the claimant for accuracy
29. ACC’s case management approach to Bronwyn is disruptive and destructive of her ability to rehabilitate/work part-time
30. ACC staff deliberately lying and writing false reports
31. ACC staff making clinical decisions without appropriate qualification
32. ACC staff making clinical assessments without medical competency
33. Deliberate interference in independent medical assessments
34. Prejudicial correspondence with independent assessors prior to assessments communicating ACC’s desired outcome – that injuries are spent &/or due to non-injury causes
35. Provision of unqualified, non-specialist opinions, by ACC internal medical advisors, contradicting existing specialist advice, prejudicing independent assessors and compromising their independence
36. Branches/Units having Case Managers who made an initial decision then conduct an administrative review of a matter before being sent to DRSL for review
37. Taking advantage of disabled claimants for actuarial/financial gain
38. Poor decision making which adds cost to the Corporation
39. Poor OCI processes which adds cost to the Corporation
40. Lack of flexibility over assessments/appointments/referrals
41. Lack of reasonable consultation and flexibility over assessments/ appointments/referrals
42. Unreasonable referrals/assessments  processes which are exploitative e.g., chaperones, multi-party assessments, lack of privacy & dignity;
43. Focus on avoiding liability at the expense of effective early rehabilitation
44. ‘Silo’ culture where case managers are unaware of ACC’s own research into rehabilitation best practice
45. Constant churn of case managers – each new case manager is unaware of the medical evidence on file leading to poor decision making and is unaware of claimant’s issues; Avoidance strategy for accountability of actions.

In a related story, the Dom Post notes:

ACC’S computer storage of its clients’ confidential medical records is “so primitive” the records can be viewed by virtually every employee from a mailroom assistant up.

The corporation relies on reminding its staff they should not look at files they are not supposed to view on its EOS claims management system as one way of protecting privacy.

It seems they can not prevent access to confidential medical records.