Stuff reports:

A former Palmerston North school principal is accused of fraudulently obtaining more than half a million dollars.

Wayne Kevin Codyre is facing 52 charges of obtaining by deception between December 2019 and March 2023, totalling $548,205.

During that time he was principal of Ross Intermediate school.

I can understand someone stealing $500,000 from a private organisation and not being noticed. But I would have thought that a public school has so little discretionary expenditure that it would be damn hard to steal $500,000.

The documents allege he obtained various amounts by deception – from as much as $117,590 to as little as $448.

That sounds like he (allegedly) stole $117,590 in one go. Will be interested in what that purported invoice was for.

In 2024, Stuff reported:

Ross Intermediate’s most recent financial statements said the school made a $76,901 loss for 2022, compared with a $158 surplus the previous year. It made a $150,131 surplus in 2020.

The ministry’s Central deputy secretary Jocelyn Mikaere said the auditor requested a letter of going concern support, which was standard procedure when a school’s working capital position was in a significant deficit position.

Maybe that should have rung warning bells.

(Using University Entrance (UE) as it is a good proxy for the other levels and includes schools that do Cambridge and IB).

It has been common knowledge for a while that girls do better academically in NZ than boys. What may surprise you is how significant the gap is – even in closely matched schools that will be demographically close and have siblings in each school.

For all NZ schools:

46% of girls leave with UE.

35% of boys leave with UE.

For matching schools (listed North to South).

“Winner”.  % of School Leavers with UE 2024.

NB: The only two schools in this list in the top 50 schools UE for leavers in 2024 are Wellington Girls College (20^th/450 schools) and Wellington College (48^th/450 schools).

Whangarei Girls High School: 40.7% of students left in 2024 with UE.
Whangarei Boys High School: 26.0%

Westlake Girls High School: 76.3%
Westlake Boys High School: 71.7%

Auckland [Boys] Grammar: 76.6%
Auckland Girls Grammar: 73.8%
Epsom Girls Grammar: 73.4%

Kelston Girls High School: 19.4%
Kelston Boys High School: 9.9%

Tauranga Girls College: 36.8%
Tauranga Boys College: 33.6%

Hamilton Girls High School: 50.0%
Hamilton Boys High School: 41.8%

Rotorua Girls High School: 21.8%
Rotorua Boys High School: 18% (NZ rugby top 4 champion)

New Plymouth Girls High Schol: 48.2%
New Plymouth Boys High School: 36.6%

Palmerston North Girls High School: 54.8%
Palmerston North Boys High School: 35.7%

Gisborne Girls High School: 40.6%
Gisborne Boys High School: 25.9%

Napier Girls High School: 65.0%
Napier Boys High School: 36.8%

Hastings Girls High School: 28.1%
Hastings Boys High School: 15.2%

Wellington Girls College: 87.0%
Wellington [Boys] College: 77.2%

Marlborough Girls High School: 40.2%
Marlborough Boys High School: 25.0%

Nelson College for Girls: 58.0%
Nelson College [for Boys]: 30.5%

Christchurch Girls High School: 71.4%
Christchurch Boys High School: 49.1%

Timaru Girls High School: 40.0%
Timaru Boys High School: 37.7%

Waitaki Girls High School: 41.2%
Waitaki Boys High School: 16.9%

Otago Girls High School: 62.2%
Otago Boys High School: 58.3%

Kings High School (Dunedin): 52.6%
Queens High School: 44.2%

Southland Girls High School: 50.4%
Southland Boys high School: 28.7%

So; if it was a game the Girls win 19 – 2.

I have the full data set – showing the NZ School LEAVERS’ outcomes for 2024 – available now.

For every high school the process looks at in ranked order (including their Equity Index Number – which replaced “deciles”)
– School size
– NCEA Level 2 and 3 for Leavers (for all schools)
– University Entrance (UE) for Leavers (for all schools)
– The gap between L3 and UE (for all schools)
– The gaps – by school and aggregate – between ethnicities.
– Retention until 17 years of age (for all schools)
– Progression to Degree Level study (for all schools)
– Data split between the EQI 10ths (for all schools)
– Data that shows which schools are thriving above their demographics
– Case study data on the Super 8 Boys’ Schools and the 13 Boys’ Schools in the South Island seeking improvement
– System wide data gender, ethnicity, etc.

(NB: The UE statistics include equivalents for Cambridge and IB).

For those who would like the data set please email me: [email protected]

• if it is for personal use – a donation is appreciated.
• if it is for professional/business/school use – the costs is $350 (plus GST) I will send the data set with an invoice.

The NZ Herald reports:

Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle is leaving Parliament, in a sudden resignation months after saying they refused to be “disappeared by hate” and did not consider standing down amid questions over their social media posts. 

In a Friday afternoon statement, Doyle, who uses they/them pronouns, said in recent months; “I have been on a journey of healing”. 

“During this time, I have come to the realisation that I cannot complete this journey while in Parliament. 

An unusual resignation. He has been an MP for less than a year which might be the shortest term as an MP who didn’t die in office.

Mike Davidson will be the 5th Green MP to enter Parliament since the election, so in 21 months they have lost a third of their caucus (one due to a tragic death to be fair).

Nicola Willis has announced some significant changes to encourage a third supermarket chain. They are:

• Legislate so that new supermarkets which would improve grocery competition qualify as fast-track referrable projects under the Fast-Track Approvals Act. 
• Streamline building consenting processes for new supermarkets by selecting a single building consent authority to standardise and streamline building consent processes for grocery developments that would enable competition.
• Amend Building Act regulations to facilitate pre-approved “MultiProof” building plans for multiple grocery developments.  
• Improve the Overseas Investment Act regime through grocery-specific provisions in the Ministerial Directive Letter.
• Amend the Commerce Act to better combat “predatory pricing” with the introduction of an objective economic test for the prosecution of firms misusing their market power to exclude or stamp-out competitors.

These all look useful and laudable steps. They seek to enable better competition, but not remove property rights from existing companies.

Richard Prebble writes:

A Royal Commission is our nation’s highest form of inquiry, reserved for the most important issues. 

To ensure confidence in its findings, commissioners have the power to summon witnesses and take their evidence in public under oath.

In my research, apart from health reasons, the only person to have ever refused to give public evidence is Gerald Shirtcliff. 

He misrepresented his engineering qualifications, moved to Australia and refused to appear at the CTV Building Collapse Inquiry, held after the Canterbury earthquakes – although he eventually gave evidence via video link from Australia.

Now there are four more refusals.

Former Labour ministers – Dame Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Ayesha Verrall — and Leader of the Opposition Chris Hipkins are refusing to give public evidence to the Covid Royal Commission.

Great company they are in.

Only ministers can explain three damaging decisions that have scarred our society.

Before the election, Hipkins, the Covid Minister, announced we were “at the front of the queue” for vaccines. In fact, New Zealand’s rollout started later than many OECD countries.

Despite Australia’s Prime Minister warning that the Delta variant could not be stopped by a lockdown, our ministers ordered the disastrous Auckland lockdown.

During that lockdown, my daughter died of cancer. I could not visit her. We could not hold a funeral. That wound will never heal.

Ardern assured vaccination would never be compulsory. At the same, vaccination was made mandatory for workers in a number of sectors. To me, there is little difference between those things.

It;s voluntary, but if you decide the wrong way you will lose you job, be banned from restaurants and cafes, not be able to shop at most retail outlets and possibly lose your entire ability to work in your occupation. Not very voluntary was it.

Received a pamphlet from Andrew Little in the letterbox. He makes five key pledges in it, so I thought it would be useful to record them here, and analyse how one could judge if he has kept his word, if he is elected Mayor.

They are:

1 Keep Rates down

A rates increase no larger than inflation would fulfil this promise well. But what could count as even a partial success? Well the Whanau Council has a 12% rates increased planned for next year, so a minimal success would be getting that to under 10%.

The current Council has further rates increases of 7% for out years. So rates increases of under 5% from 27/28 would qualify.

Little also said he wants independent monitoring to stop cost blowouts. So if there are no cost blowouts under his term as Mayor, that would be a win. In the good old days you had a 10% contingency for costs blowouts so you could say anything over 10% over budget is a blowout. But considering this Council routinely sees cost blowouts of over 100%, let’s be kind and say it is a kept promise if no major project comes in at more than 20% over the initial cost agreed to.

2 More affordable housing

Andrew has said he wants to make consents quicker and easier. So this would be a kept promise if this happens. In the year to June 2025 there were 433 new dwelling consents. So one would expect the year to June 2027 to be above 450 at a minimum. Same as major cities.

The median time for a building consent is 10 days. This is somewhat misleading as Councils can stop the clock by constantly asking for more info, but this is the official statistic. So one would expect the median time to drop to below 10 days.

3 Cheaper, more reliable public transport

A nonsense promise about supporting a weekly cap on train and bus fares. WCC has no role in setting public transports fares – GWRC does that. So all Andrew is saying is he will write a letter, and GWRC will write back and say “nice idea, who will pay for it”. It is by the way a good idea. Is already planned for when new ticketing system implemented.

One way to reduce public transport fares is to reduce the zones within Wellington City from 3 to 2, but Little has not said he’ll support this.

He did also say he wants to improve bus priority. There are currently 20 bus lanes (at certain times) and 12 bus only lanes. So an increase in this number would arguably meet that commitment.

4 Protect libraries and swimming pools

Andrew says he will prioritise community facilities for investment. The LTP has $60.5m set aside for renewing community facilities for 2024-2034. So one would expect Little’s first plan would see that increase.

Will he support funding for a Northern Indoor Rec Centre?.

5 Make Council accountable to you

Andrew says he will end the misuse of commercial sensitivity. Had one to measure but I guess look out for how often Council (if he is elected) refuses to release info using this ground.

He says he wants Council to listen more. The annual residents survey found only 23% think WCC makes decisions in best interest of the city. So if he can improve that, that would be a win.

Todd Stephenson announced:

ACT MP Todd Stephenson is today re-lodging his End of Life Choice Amendment Bill, incorporating every single recommendation from the Ministry of Health’s 2024 statutory review of the End of Life Choice Act.

“The End of Life Choice Act gave New Zealanders a precious right: to make decisions about their own death with dignity, compassion, and control. More than 1,200 New Zealanders have chosen that path since the law came into force,” says Mr Stephenson.

“My updated Bill strengthens that right by adopting all 25 recommendations from the Ministry’s independent review. That includes changes to improve safety, workforce capacity, and alignment with the wider health system. I’ve written to every MP to seek support on this basis.

“The updated Bill also restores the original intent of my earlier Member’s Bill by addressing the overly restrictive six-month prognosis requirement.

“This narrow threshold has excluded people with terminal diagnoses who are suffering intolerably, despite being in an irreversible decline. My Bill replaces that arbitrary cut-off with a test that reflects medical reality – recognising that death doesn’t always follow a calendar.”

I hope the bill gets drawn from the ballot, or alternatively 61 non-Ministers will endorse it going straight onto the order paper.

I am a purist when it comes to Reserve Bank independence over setting the Official Cash Rate. I have long advocated that PMs and Finance Ministers shouldn’t express a view in public or private as to what they think the Reserve Bank should do.

In 2011 I did a post titled “Bad John” when John Key merely said:

Well that’s a matter for the Reserve Bank Governor, and it’s for him to decide and him alone to decide what happens on Thursday but certainly the markets have factored in a likely cut in the official cash rate, and you’ve gotta say lower interest rates probably help the country, but that ultimately is a matter for the Governor

Reserve Bank Governors know that politicians generally want cuts in the cash rate because it helps economic growth. And that is exactly why the Reserve Bank is independent.

Just as I thought John Key shouldn’t say publicly what he thinks the Reserve Bank should do, the same goes for Christopher Luxon who revealed he shares his views directly with the Governor. I trust Governors to put their obligation to keep inflation under 3% ahead of views of politicians, but a big part of the ability of a central bank to get inflation down is if markets believe they will increase the cash rate to dampen inflation, no matter how unpopular it might be.

Of course the comments by Key 14 years and Luxon are minor infringements of best practice compared to Donald Trump who not just demands loudly that the Federal Reserve lower interest rates, but tries to sack members of the Federal Reserve who vote the wrong way.

Stuff reports:

Scientist Dr Mike Joy is making no apologies for an internet post in which he criticises the dairy industry about nitrate contamination of drinking water and asks: “How about we bring back hanging for industry CEOs?”

The post referred to an article about Minnie Dean, who was hanged for killing a child in 1895.

“Minnie Dean was hung for killing babies in Southland but our dairy industry is currently putting babies (and adults) at risk with nitrate contamination of drinking/groundwater,” Joy said in his post.

Dr Joy has every right to say deranged offensive things. But maybe media shouldn’t treat him as someone who has anything constructive to offer? He is I guess the white collar version of the protesters who had placards wanting Jacinda Ardern to be executed.

“Federated Farmers are trying to make me out to be nuts so that they can avoid the facts,” Joy said.

Its not Federated Farmers making Dr Joy looks nuts. It is Dr Joy.

Tony Randle writes:

Approving the Organics Processing Solution on 7 August also approved the wider “Zero Waste” Programme because the partner “Collections” Project for new bins is already approved. Last week’s decision commits $12 – 16m in capital plus a 4.5% targeted rates increase to enable, even if successful, the diversion of just 6,000 tonnes per year (t/yr) of organics. …

During the meeting, one supporter said “… this will be eventually one of the best ways that we can address our climate emissions and that is fantastic. Over 2,400 tonnes I heard earlier. And for that alone I’m hugely supportive of this.” The 4.5% Targeted Rate increase will generate $22.5m/year in order to achieve the equivalent of a 2,400-tonne reduction in CO2 emissions. This works out at $9,375 per tonne saved when the current price of carbon is $57/tonne. This “solution” will have ratepayers paying over 150 times the market price to reduce our emissions by what is really a tiny amount. Far from fantastic, in climate change outcome terms, this project is a complete waste of money.

This should be a sackable offence. They are paying almost $10,000 a tonne to reduce carbon emissions, which it cab be done for $57. Would they do it if it is their money? Of course not. But when it is ours, they make up bear 20% rates increases because they simply don’t care/

The left wing Third Way organisation has published a list of 45 words other than says Democrats (the left) should avoid using as they alienate people. Sadly for the, I doubt the right people will listen. Some of the words are:

• Privilege, Triggering, Safe space – these words say “I’m more empathetic than you, and you are callous to hurting other’s feelings.”
• Systems of oppression, Critical theory, Cultural appropriation, Existential threat to [climate, the planet, democracy, the economy] – this language says “I’m smarter and more concerned about important issues than you. Your kitchen table concerns are small.”
• Radical transparency, Barriers to participation, The unhoused, Person who immigrated – these words say “we are beholden to groups, not individuals. People have no agency.”
• Birthing person/inseminated person, Pregnant people, Chest feeding, LGBTQIA+ – These say “your views on traditional genders and gender roles are at best quaint.”
• Latinx, BIPOC, Intersectionality – These words signal that talking about race is even more of a minefield. You will be called out as racist if you do not use the latest and correct terminology.
• Incarcerated people – This says: “The criminal is the victim. The victim is an afterthought.”

Someone who is bored should monitor for a few weeks how many of the 45 words appears in Labour, Green and TPM press releases!

Peter Williams writes:

If the voters of Tamaki Makarau send Oriini Kaipara to Parliament this Saturday they need a collective mental health assessment where the first question should be “are you barking mad?”

In the history of New Zealand politics has there ever been such a trainwreck of a serious political candidate as Ms Kaipara?

Consider these scenarios – they have all happened.

On the Tuesday before the final polling day she refuses to answer questions from a TV political reporter – and a Maori female one at that.

She has suggested her main opponent for the seat, Peeni Henare, should be the first Maori Prime Minister, something that is surely unlikely if Mr Henare loses a seat twice in succession after winning it in three consecutive elections from 2014.

Her big set piece interview on TV’s Q and A was a complete disaster. She claimed that Te Pati Maori have repealed various pieces of legislation despite never having been in government and being in opposition since 2023. Only governments repeal legislation.

When asked about an aspect of Te Pati Maori policy she stumbled and mumbled and then, unbelievably, said she needed to refer to her phone to get the right answer – then couldn’t find her phone! 

For someone who has worked in television her performance on Q and A was hopeless.

Peter is correct that Kaipara has performed woefully in the campaign. However this doesn’t mean the majority of by-election voters are aware of this, or even if it will affect their vote.

But if Peeni Henare does manage to lose to her, it will be massively embarrassing for him. It is one thing to lose to the CEO of the local Marae (which happened to host a polling place), but to lose to someone who can’t answer basic questions without checking on their phone would be mortifying.

Michael Johnston explains well:

Learning to read is the first step in school education. It is essential to later learning. At first, it is also very difficult.  

Things are made much easier for beginning readers if they are explicitly taught the regular correspondences between spelling and sound. It enables them to sound out words they haven’t seen in written form before, provided they know those words in spoken form. 

Teaching spelling-sound correspondences is the first step in the ‘structured literacy’ approach to teaching reading. Mandating that approach was one of Erica Stanford’s first moves when she became Education Minister. 

Different languages have different spelling-sound mappings. For example, in English, the letters ‘wh’ correspond to a /w/ sound, as in ‘where.’ But in te reo Māori, the same letters correspond to a /f/ sound, as in ‘whānau.’  

Because the two languages have different spelling-sound correspondences, it is a mistake to introduce beginning readers to both at the same time. In fact, if a child is learning to read in English, it is best to also avoid English words that don’t follow the regular rules, until they are fluent with the regular spelling-sound mappings.  

Children need to master the spelling-sound correspondences of one language before they tackle those of another. Otherwise, they are likely to become confused. 

That is why Minister Stanford asked the Ministry of Education to remove Māori words from reading books for Year 1. That move was widely reported in the media last week. 

It took me just six brief paragraphs to explain the reason for Stanford’s decision. Yet, none of the mainstream media clearly articulated that reason. Apart from a conversation with Professor Elizabeth Rata on The Platform, no structured literacy experts were interviewed. 

This is a simple explanation. Have you seen it in any media outlet?

Radio NZ has their latest campaign story where they think that government should refuse to talk to companies they regulate. Their latest starts off:

Alcohol lobbyists pushed health officials not to raise taxes, curb supply or cut industry sponsorship of sport – despite those measures being endorsed by the World Health Organisation as among the most effective ways to reduce alcohol harm.

This is the typical appeal to authority – because the WHO says something, it must be wrong to disagree.

This is the same WHO that said that all evidence is that Covid-19 had an animal origin.

I prefer to take issues on their merits, not on who advocates for them.

Health Coalition Aotearoa said the industry should have no role in shaping alcohol policy. But the ministry’s deputy director general Andrew Old defended its engagement, insisting companies had no special access.

“They certainly haven’t had any particular special treatment or back door into the ministry. It’s been a deliberate, structured approach. They’ve had quarterly meetings with the team,” Old said.

“I can absolutely and categorically say that there is no veto power. So if the industry says ‘we don’t want to see this’, that has no bearing on the outcome. It is a view that is considered alongside a range of other views.”

Old accepted the alcohol industry was motivated by profit.

“I also would hope that, in doing that, they don’t want to be doing harm,” he said. “There’s clearly a conflict. But, to my mind, it’s not an irreconcilable conflict that would mean that we should just never talk to them.”

Such common sense. HCA are unable to win policy arguments, so what they are now trying to do is say that arguments should be rejected on the basis of who says then, not the quality of the argument.

The MOH DDG is quote right. Of course government should be aware there is a profit motive to arguments from industry. That forms parts of your analysis and decision making. But that is very different to the Stalinist insistence that they must be silenced and not allowed to even meet or e-mail officials.

“The WHO SAFER strategies include measures like restricting availability and raising excise taxes,” a submission from the Brewers Association says.

“These broad based initiatives are generally seen as reducing consumption overall and not targeting harmful consumption.”

This is the terrible stuff the industry says. That interventions should aim to reduce harmful consumption, rather than all consumption. As it happens te data shows that overall consumption has reduced dramatically in the last 30 years, so it seems common sense to say you should target harmful consumption as a priority.

Spirits New Zealand, which represents the likes of Asahi, Bacardi, Diageo, Lion, Moet-Hennessy and Pernod Ricard, warned against launching action on FASD without knowing what the prevalence was.

It took issue with estimates, based on international studies and expert opinion, that 3-5 percent of babies – 1800 to 3000 every year – are born with FASD.

“This is simply not credible and is similar to the situation that existed when the last plan was developed in 2016,” the lobbyists say.

“We cannot see how any FASD-prevention plan can be started without good data as a baseline. We would ask that the Public Health Agency give assurances that work on measurement frameworks occurs prior to other plan elements being launched.”

Oh how terrible – they asked the government to actually gather good data, to be used as a basis for a prevention plan. Why would anyone be against good data?

Leigh Henderson, chair of the advocacy group FASD-CAN, was concerned the alcohol industry doubted the prevalence of FASD.

“Are they saying, ‘Okay, it’s all right for 500 babies to be born, but not 1800,” she asked. “We know it’s not 100 percent preventable, but to try and downplay it in that way is just callous and not recognising the level of the problem.”

This is just hysteria. No-one is saying 500 is good. They are saying that we should know what the prevalence is. This is critical to working out the appropriate interventions because a cost benefit analysis needs to be able to measure both.

In a statement chief executive Robert Brewer said Spirits NZ “categorically denies” downplaying the extent of FASD.

“The government can’t fix a problem if it doesn’t know its true extent, level of occurrence, who is affected and why and to do this you need good data. This is basic public policy.”

Eminently sensible, yet Radio NZ would have you think this is evil, and an example of why government officials should refuse to meet or respond to e-mails from industry.

The spirits industry also took issue with the draft FASD strategy saying New Zealand is a country where “alcohol is highly accessible, use is normalised,” and there are high rates of hazardous drinking.

Brewer said hazardous drinking had declined over the last four years in New Zealand to just 16 percent of adults.

Damn those evil industry people for trying to debate feelings with facts.

Two professors of economics have 10 questions they would have out to former Ministers about Covid-19. Hopefully these have been put by the Royal Commission. They are:

• 1. When did you become aware, if at all, of the evidence that the vaccines did not prevent transmission?  
• 2. Were you at all concerned, especially in light of the limited efficacy of vaccines that making the vaccines mandatory may damage public confidence and in the end result in lower uptake of other vaccines as well?
• 3. In 2020, did you know what the average age of death with covid-19 was and whether this differed from background life expectancy? If you had known that these figures were the same would this have changed your response?
• 4. Were you aware in 2020, that the mortality risk from Covid-19 was highly skewed by age with the risk for young adults or youths being miniscule? How and to what extent did this risk stratification by age issue play a role in your deliberations?
• 5. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives individuals the right to refuse medical treatment. It would appear that the vaccine mandates contravened this right. What was the nature of the discussion in balancing this tension between the individual’s right to refuse treatment and the common good of the vaccine mandate? What advice was sought and from whom?
• 6. Is it true that the Election (sic) Commission suggested postponing the 2020 General Elections to November in order to give the opposition time to campaign? If so, then what were the grounds for ignoring this advice?
• 7. Is it true that in September 2021, the Director General of Health suggested that a Level 4 lockdown was no longer required for Auckland? What, then, was the basis for extending this lockdown to December?
• 8. You are on record for stating that a strong health response in the form of lockdowns was the best economic response. Our response was among the most debt-intensive, saw one of the sharpest declines in real GDP growth, and likely incurred large human capital losses from school closures. What kind of economic advice did you seek and what evidence did you rely on? Did those agencies/experts agree with your assessment and response?
• 9. Were you aware of the Productivity Commission report suggesting that the costs of the extra five days of lockdown in April 2020 outweighed the benefits by about 90 to 1? If so, then what role did this evidence play in future deliberations? Did you consider seeking similar feedback from the Productivity Commission regarding the cost-benefit trade-offs of other key policies? If not, why not?
• 10. Do you have any regrets about how you handled the pandemic?

I will be very disappointed if questions like these were not put to the former Ministers.

An interesting story by Chris Lynch. Left wing Councillor and mayoral candidate Sara Templeton said during an interview that under Lianne Dalziel Christchurch was resurfacing 5% of its roading network every year but this had dropped to 1% under the current Mayor.

The unfortunate thing for Templeton is that she was completely wrong. In fact in the last financial year they resurfaced 6.5% of the roading network. So this was not a minor mistake – she was completely and utterly wrong.

As she is an incumbent Councillor, her “mistake” is even worse.

Fellow Councillor Sam MacDonald put out a statement asking her to correct her comments and Templeton’s response is to decry MacDonald as attack style politics.

So Templeton thinks being held to account for grossly misleading statements is bad!

Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche points out:

The PPTA’s current set of claims would cost taxpayers $1.7 billion over four years. That’s equivalent to an extra $67,000 for every full-time secondary teacher. It’s unaffordable, unreasonable and unrealistic. 

I’d like to see the best teachers earning over $120,000 a year. But that would require a pay scale that isn’t automatic progression based on time in job. The sad reality is that the inflexibility in the teacher pay agreements means that any increases for the best teachers are unaffordable because the same pay goes to each and every teacher who has been there long enough.

I use University Entrance as the key indicator for three reasons:

1. It is the highest qualification that covers all schools.
2. It is a very good proxy for the levels below.
3. It includes schools who do IB, Cambridge and NCEA.
   
   

UE for Leavers Ethnicity 2024
Asian 61%
European 43%
Pasifika 24%
Maori 19%

UE for Leavers by School Governance 2024
Private 83%
State Integrated 61%
State 35%

UE for leavers by School Type 2024
Single Sex Girls 63%
Single Sex Boys 48%
Co-Educational 36%

UE for Leavers Gender 2024
Girls 46%
Boys 35%

For the full data set that covers key stats on every high school email: [email protected]

I was sad to see Neil Quigley resign as Reserve Bank Chair, but not surprised. The lack of transparency over Orr’s resignation was sub-standard.

However to be fair, Quigley had a very challenging job. It is the first time I can recall that a Reserve Bank Governor had to be effectively removed from office, and I can understand the desire to do it in a way which didn’t result in a public meltdown between the Governor and the Board. So I thought it would be useful to look at what Quigley did right and wrong.

• Appointment as Governor in December 2017, to take effect from March 2018. At the time this was a very uncontroversial appointment. Orr had been a bank chief economist, a Reserve Bank Deputy Governor and a very successful NZ Super Fund CEO.
• Re-appointment as Governor in November 2022, for a further five year term from March 2023. By this stage the Board should have been aware of the many concerns over Orr’s performance. Not just the monetary policy failure which led to inflation over 7%, but his bullying behaviour towards critics. They clearly knew about this because as part of his re-appointment they said “The Governor will also model the highest standards of behaviour in promoting a safe environment for debate and in treating with respect those people with different views from their own”
  • A public sector CEO that needs to be told by his board to treat people with respect should ring warning bells.
  • To be fair, the views of the Minister will have played a big role. The reality is that you don’t put up a CEO for re-appointment if there is any risk the Minister will say no. The Board would have been unofficially told the Minister (Robertson) was happy or even keen for Orr to be re-appointed.
  • The fact that both National and Act opposed Orr being reappointed (I can’t recall any other Governor ever having opposition from a major party) would have been unofficially known to the board and did they consider the damage it would do recommending reappointment, which would expose the Bank politically
• It has been revealed that Quigley had started a process that could lead to Orr leaving. He e-mailed Orr with a list of board concerns. This was the correct thing to do. Any CEO that has a formal e-mail from their board of concerns knows what this means. So Quigley did well to start this process. Of course I suspect all these concerns were known in 2022 when they recommended him for re-appointment.
• Orr was determined not to accept a reduction in funding for the Reserve Bank, despite the rest of the public sector doing so. Quigley led the board to develop a view different to the Governor, that they could perform their statutory functions with reduced funding. This was important, and good leadership. Boards need to know when to back their CEO, and when not to.
• Quigley worked out a managed exit with Orr through an exit agreement. This was good, as a messy fall out between the Board and Governor would not be good.
• Where Quigley fell down is in agreeing (or suggesting) that the resignation was for personal reasons. We don’t know if this was a requirement of any agreement, but if it was then it should not have been agreed to. You can sugar coat a resignation, but you can’t mislead.
  • The sensible thing to do would have been to simply refer to the funding disagreement. This was the primary cause of the resignation, and should have been public. It was also naive to think it would not become widely known (as it did).
  • You could have still agreed to not make any reference to wider concerns over behaviour, as this is pretty common in exit agreements to not wash all the laundry in public.

So there were many things Quigley did do right. But the two things he clearly got wrong was recommending re-appointment in 2022, and hiding that the resignation was about a funding disagreement.