The Herald reports:

A teaching revolution that’s helped turn around some of the world’s toughest schools has come to New Zealand – but not everyone is laying out the welcome mat.

Teach For All – a network of international programmes that seek to get ambitious university graduates into low-income schools after six weeks of training – will hold its global conference in Auckland today.

Hosted by the local iteration of the controversial on-the-job teaching model, called Teach First NZ, the conference will involve 200 overseas delegates mixing with local education experts.

Presentations on work done here, particularly to lift achievement among Maori, will be a highlight.

“We have been impressed with what the New Zealand community has done to reduce the opportunity gap for Maori kids,” said Wendy Kopp, co-founder of Teach For All.

“We are excited to learn about cultural responsiveness, about how relationships are at the heart of teaching here.”

So far, around 50 teachers have gone through the New Zealand programme, with chief executive Shaun Sutton hoping to increase the intake to 60 incoming participants a year by 2020.

But despite the organisation’s commendable goal – to close the gap for disadvantaged kids – not everyone in the sector believes the programme should be in New Zealand schools.

So this is a proven programme with great results overseas, and it is targeted as the most disadvantaged kids.

So of course the NZEI is against.

Critics have labelled it a “crash course”, and this week primary teacher union the NZEI said it believed disadvantaged students deserved experienced and qualified teachers, and should not be treated like guinea pigs.

Trying to improve their outcomes is not making them a guinea pig. The status quo system works well for 85% of kids but not for 15%. Why would you oppose something that has a great track record? Probably because it means less power for the union.

So far, reviews of the New Zealand programme have been good, with evaluation reports finding the teachers were having a positive impact in their schools.

Great.

Teach First UK founder Brett Wigdortz said results in London meant schools with a majority of low-income students were performing better than the national average. In 2003, none of those schools were better than the national standard.

“The norm has always been that kids from less wealthy backgrounds don’t achieve at the same level. If there is a shift, usually it’s just the wealthy kids doing a lot better,” Mr Wigdortz said. “But that has been consigned to the dustbin of history. In London, everyone is getting better and the gap is getting smaller.”

Such progress must be stopped.

David Shearer writes:

Here’s a “school lunch” bought from an Auckland dairy this morning. It has 8 teaspoons of sugar – about twice the recommended daily amount for a child, in one single meal.

Obesity is poised to overtake tobacco as New Zealand’s leading preventable health risk. As long as the government lacks the courage to regulate junk food, its plan to tackle obesity isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Time to stand up to the powerful food manufacturing lobby for the sake of our kids.

And the school lunch is:

I am staggered that David Shearer thinks that if school kids are eating this for lunch, the problem is food manufacturers, not parents.

On an individual level all four food items are fine as an occasional snack. Or is Labour saying that these food items must be banned or taxed extra?

The problem is if they are what a kid is having for lunch on a regular basis.

And I’ll be blunt – you’re a bad parent if that is what you are having your kids eat for lunch.

For a fraction of the cost you can make up a healthy lunch for your kids – sandwiches, fruit, sultanas etc. There is no excuse for the above to be a regular lunch item for kids.

Why do politicians of the left always look to blame companies, rather than blame individuals for poor choices?

No amount of tax or regulation short of banning all potato chips in NZ will stop a kid eating that for lunch, if their parents are not taking an interest in them having healthy food.

And don’t say this is all poor families can afford. That lunch would cost:

• Calci yum $1.69
• Grain waves $1.62
• Bluebird $1.49
• Minees $1.00

So around $5 for that.

Maybe David Shearer could tell us exactly what regulation he proposes that would stop that food being sold from a dairy?

Stuff reports Andrew Little is saying the same:

Labour leader Andrew Little says the Government should take a stick to junk food producers, rather than shying away from regulation as it tries to tackle rising obesity levels.

Yes how dare the food producers create potato chips. They must be beaten up for it.

There is nothing wrong with so called junk food, in moderation. I have potato chips around once a month. If someone has them every day and is obese, the answer is not regulating or banning potato chips.

Once again Canada has a Prime Minister Trudeau.

The results of the election are:

• Liberals 39.5% (+20.6%) 184 (+150) seats
• Conservatives 31.9% (-7.7%) 99 (-67) seats
• NDP 19.7% (-10.9%) 44 (-59) seats
• Bloc Quebecois 4.7% (-1.3%) 10 (+6) seats
• Greens 3.5% (-0.4%0 1 seat (nc)

170 seats is a majority so the Liberals have made it. When you consider they came a distant third in 2011, this is a massive victory for them. Meanwhile the Conservatives and NDP have been slaughtered, both losing important figures such as the Conservative Finance Minister and NDP Deputy Leader.

The polls were pretty accurate, even if the seat projections were less so. The differences between the result and the average of the final polls was:

• Liberals 2.2% better
• Conservatives 1.0% better
• NDP 2.0% worse

I think there was a bit of last minute tactical voting from NDP to Liberals.

Harper has resigned as Conservative Leader, so they will have an Acting Leader for almost a year as their primary style elections take a long time.

An interesting article at Stuff:

When asked what he wanted Cantabrians to think about the Labour Party this time next year, Little said: “I want people to say they’re hearing and seeing from Labour more often and that we’re making constructive comments about the future for Canterbury.“

That would make a nice change.

Woods said she was excited about her new role and felt the earthquake recovery was at a “hugely important point in terms of what happens next”.

She said she intended to hold Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee to account when necessary but also wanted to work alongside the Government on quake-related issues.

Hard to imagine Clayton ever working alongside the Government on anything, so the appointment of Woods is a positive step.

Cosgrove, who lost his seat in Waimakariri to National’s Matt Doocey in 2014, said bringing quake-related portfolios together made sense.

Actually he lost it to Kate Wilkinson in 2011. Matt Doocey also beat him in 2014 but he didn’t lose it to Doocey.

Left-wing blogger Martyn Bradbury said Christchurch had been a “bastion” for Labour, but instead of rallying behind the party after the quakes, the region had “walked away to National”.

“If you line up all the problems that have occurred [with the rebuild] there’s been plenty of fertile ground for Labour to attack the Government, and they have attacked but it just hasn’t resonated.”

Because relentless negativity doesn’t appeal.

In 2005 National trailed Labour in Christchurch 7.6%

In 2008 National beat Labour in Christchurch by only 5.1%.

In 2011 National beat Labour in Christchurch by 22.7%.

In 2014 National beat Labour in Christchurch by 24.1%.

That’s not just not resonating. That’s going backwards.

The Herald reports:

World Cup winning All Black Mils Muliaina says he can hold his head up high after a prosecution against him for allegedly groping a young woman’s backside in a crowded Welsh night club was thrown out.

The 100-test international also spoke out against the manner of his arrest, which was aired on live TV straight after a top flight European rugby match.

A sexual assault charge against Muliaina was dropped last night when the Crown conceded there was not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. …

Muliaina, 35, was accused of touching a 19-year-old woman “on he bottom over her trousers” on a busy nightclub nightclub dance floor.

Putting aside whether or not the incident did happen, what surprises me is that this was deemed serious enough for criminal prosecution.

Don’t get me wrong. No one should grope anyone’s behind without consent, and if you do you’re a pillock and deserve anything from a drink thrown in your face to public calling out for doing it.

But should this be something that goes to court and gets someone a criminal prosecution?

If someone punched someone on the arm, would we expect that to go to court, even though it is assault? You expect there to be some discretion as to whether it should be prosecuted, or just cautioned.

The fullback was arrested after the final whistle of his team’s European Challenge Cup quarter-final defeat at Gloucester in April.

Still in his team tracksuit, he was captured by TV cameras as he was led away to a police van.

“I always knew I never did anything wrong. The way I was treated, I suppose I was a bit aggrieved by it,” Muliaina said.

And even worse he was arrested in the most high profile way possible.

I thought from the reporting at the time that the alleged sexual assault was something close to rape. Why else would you arrest them at the end of a game, rather than just ask them to come into the police station?

I’be blogged the latest One News poll at Curia.

Andrew Little has been Opposition Leader for around a year now. So how is he polling as Preferred PM compared to other opposition leaders one year in? Here’s the list since MMP in 1996.

1. John Key 33%
2. Don Brash 20%
3. Jenny Shipley 16%
4. David Shearer 11%
5. Bill English 10%
6. David Cunliffe 10%
7. Phil Goff 9%
8. Andrew Little 8%

Jonathan Coleman announced:

The 22 initiatives in the plan are a mix of new or an expansion of existing services which are grouped into three key themes:

• Targeted interventions for those who are obese
• Increased support for those at risk of becoming obese
• Broad strategies to make healthier choices easier

“At the core of the plan is a new childhood obesity health target. This target will be part of the health targets programme from 1 July 2016,” says Dr Coleman.

“By December 2017, 95 per cent of children identified as obese in the B4 School Check will be referred to an appropriate health professional for clinical assessment and family based nutrition, activity and lifestyle interventions.

“The B4 School Check is a free health and development check for four year olds. The checks aim to identify and address any health, behavioural, social or development concerns which could affect a child’s ability to get the most benefit from school.

“Over 58,600 children have benefited from this free service in the last year. Of that, over 1,400 were referred on for obesity related support. With this target we expect that will treble to over 4,000 a year by December 2017.

The 22 initiatives are here.

Stuff reports:

Rugby World Cup bosses have officially confirmed South African referee Craig Joubert blundered in awarding Australia a penalty that handed them victory over Scotland. …

World Rugby said in a statement said they had conducted a full review of match officials’ performance and clarified Joubert’s decision, finding he had made a mistake and should have awarded a scrum to Australia for an initial knock-on.

They said Joubert had incorrectly applied law 11.7 penalising Scotland’s Jon Welsh, who had played the ball following a knock-on by a team-mate, resulting in an offside.

“On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball. 

“In this case, law 11.3(c) should have been applied, putting Welsh onside. The appropriate decision, therefore, should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on.

MYOB report:

The 90-day work trial appears to be creating more employment opportunities in the SME sector, according to the latest nationwide MYOB Business Monitor survey of business owners and operators from around the country.

Almost two thirds (63%) of small businesses (6-19 employees) and 16 per cent of micro businesses (1-5 employees) have employed a new staff member on a 90-day trial in the last year. Meanwhile, just 13 per cent of small businesses and 5 per cent of micro businesses have dismissed a staff member within their trial period over the 12 months to August 2015.

So four out of five employed on a 90 day trial get kept on, but around one in five are not.

I’m not surprised so many SMEs are using the trial period. It is simply impossible to determine in advance how well some employees will do. CVs and job interviews can only cover so much. And if you are a small business and end up with an employee who simply is unable to do the job, or causes turbulence in the office, then previously the cost would be great- it could even put you under.

Another story shows employers are reasonable about the length of time:

“The 90-day trial periods have been very successful – not just for employers, but also employees,” Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich said. “I think 120 days is unreasonable, mainly because I would ask the question ‘if you don’t know after 90 days, what more information are you getting after 120?”

SME Business Network founder Tenby Powell shared Rich’s sentiments over the programme’s success, as did Wellington Chamber of Commerce chief executive John Milford, saying management and staff should be engaged throughout the entire trial period, and that the outcome “should never come as a surprise.”

I agree there is no need for more than 90 days. That is enough time to establish if someone is up to the job.

Stuff reports:

The primary teachers’ union has launched legal action over female support workers’ being paid $8 per hour less than males.

If this was true, it would be an outrage. But female support workers are not paid $8 per hour less than male support workers.

NZEI national secretary Paul Goulter said it had been more than six years since an independent job evaluation report by the Pay and Employment Equity Unit showed that support workers employed by the Ministry of Education were paid as much as $8 an hour less than a comparable male-dominated job.

That is quite a different thing. This is what unions do. They say nurses should be paid the same as police and as nurses are mainly female and police mainly male, it is gender discrimination.

I don’t want a centrally planned economy where the courts decide how this industry is equivalent to this industry and they must be paid the same. That’s what the Soviet Union used to have. At the end of the day, wage rates will reflect the level needed to recruit and retain staff.

News.com.au reports:

MALCOLM Turnbull yesterday acknowledged he and wife Lucy had been lucky and were wealthier than most Australians who worked harder than them.

But the Prime Minister, one of the richest members of Parliament, made no apologies for his wealth: “We’ve worked hard, we’ve paid our taxes, we’ve given back.”

Mr Turnbull was responding to Labor attacks on his investments in funds based in the Cayman Islands, a tactic that has highlighted how well-off the Prime Minister has become.

He returned the attack, accusing Labor of taking Parliament down the “the avenue of the politics of envy”.

The Turnbull are estimated to be worth $200 million. Labor thinks this is a bad thing!

“I don’t believe my wealth, or frankly most people’s wealth, is entirely a function of hard work,” Mr Turnbull said.

“Of course hard work is important but, you know, there are taxi drivers that work harder than I ever have and they don’t have much money.

“There are cleaners that worked harder than I ever have or you ever have and they don’t have much money.

“This country is built upon hard work, people having a go and enterprise.

“Some of us will be more successful than others, some of us are fortunate in the turn of business, some of us are fortunate in the intellect we inherit from our parents.”

Nice way to put it.

The Guardian reports:

The prime minister said he and his wife, Lucy, had been very fortunate in their lives and had “more wealth than most Australians”, but they had sought to give back to the community and had not dodged their tax obligations.

And he invited Labor MPs who were asking pointed questions about his investments to “go round wearing a sandwich board saying, ‘Malcolm Turnbull’s got a lot of money’,” because most people already knew that to be the case.

NZ Labour spent years trying much the same, thinking most NZers did not realise Key was wealthy!

“Well, it is a very sad day that the Labor party, which could be talking today about the economy, could be asking about growth, could be proposing some new ideas on innovation or enterprise, spends most of today’s question time and most of yesterday’s question time on just another shabby smear campaign – just another wander down the avenue of the politics of envy, just another smear,” Turnbull said on Thursday.

Good quote.

This is an analysis of the press releases put out by the Taxpayers Union since formation.

I’m proudly that it is independent and vigorous in criticizing wasteful spending and making the case for lowering taxes.

As you can see the vast majority of releases have been on the Government, and critical of it. I expect this will always be the case regardless of who is in Government.

82% of releases on the Government have been critical. This is slightly higher than for the Greens (78%), Labour (68%) and NZ First (67%).

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restrain and servitude.”

– Alexis de Tocqueville

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

Projection from CBC.

The long campaign in Canada has made a difference – but not for the Conservatives. It started with the hard left NDP leading and looking to maybe form Government for the first time ever and the Liberals (sort of like NZ Labour, but more business friendly and  more corrupt) in third place.

But the Liberals are projected to win the most seats and if so they will form Government. Getting a majority is unlikely but not impossible.

If the Conservatives do better than expected then it could be a fascinating constitutional issue, with the Governor-General playing a role.

The cultural history of Canada is that the largest party has been allowed to form Government, even if opposition parties could defeat them. So even though the NDP could have in the past put the Liberals into Government, they have not as Conservatives won the most seats.

But this tradition may end. The NDP have said they will not support a Conservative minority Government, even if they win the most seats. However neither have they said they would support a Liberal Government if the Liberals win fewer seats than the Conservatives. So you could have Harper ask the Governor-General to allow him to test the confidence of the House.

The Globe and Mail have forecast:

• 81% probability Liberals get most seats
• 19% probability Conservatives get most seats
• 0% probability NDP get most seats
• 98% chance Liberals and NDP have a majority

So not looking for Stephen Harper, but the polls have been wrong in other races recently so we’ll see the results as they come in!

I have been a very long standing advocate for term limits for MPs.  In fact as a Young National in the early 1990s I gained a fair bit of media attention for my remit proposing a maximum of six terms for MPs. The Herald pointed out the only two National MPs it would have impacted are then PM Jim Bolger and Bill Birch!

Rodney Hide writes in NBR:

Mr Goff joined the Labour Party at 16 and became an MP in 1981. He has been a politician his entire life. The key to his political survival is his excessive caution and extreme flexibility.

Mr Goff has never made a do-or-die stand and, indeed, has travelled the entire political spectrum and back again. He has been against free trade, for free trade and now he’s against again.

Actually he is back in favour again it seems.

We need the simple rule that an MP can only serve a maximum of four terms. That one change would transform politics. We would have citizen politicians again.

They would represent us rather than themselves.

Politicians would have to have careers outside of politics. The bulk of their experience would be outside of politics rather than politics itself.

I think four is a bit short with three year terms. But if we had four year terms, then four four year terms would be about right – 16 years. More than enough time to make a contribution and move on.

With term limits all that would change. One quarter of the Parliament would be retired every election. There would be a proper churn. Political candidates could have a great career in business, in sport, the arts, in health, in life and then stand. 

They could stand in their mid-50s, have a good chance of making it in, have a good chance of becoming a minister and even a chance of being prime minister. They would be retired in their 60s.

Everyday people could stand for high office. Mums with their children now off their hands. Working people who know about life. We could elect business leaders and sporting heroes. Everyone would have an opportunity to stand.

Not sure everybody would have an opportunity, but knowing a parliamentary career would be for a finite period would make it easier to plan.

More importantly MPs would focus on what can they achieve in their limited time in Parliament, rather than just how do they stay on as long as possible.

The Betoota Advocate reports:

Inner-city residents of Sydney have today put forward a proposal to local council that enforce an official gluten-free zone in the main street of Surry Hills.

After months of petitions and meetings with barristers, local blogger Lynne Seede has officially met with Lord Mayor Clover Moore to discuss the plan, which has been gathering momentum for months.

“We aren’t asking for this. We are demanding it,” she said

“There are thousands of Surry Hills residents that recognise gluten can be harmful, and quite frankly, we don’t want it here,”

“Working with a local mothers group, I came to the idea after the Mosman city council banned cigarette smoking in the streets. Shortly after Barry O’Farrell imposed the lock-out on pubs in Kings Cross,”

“We thought ‘what is the biggest concern for our children and neighbours?’ – It became pretty clear that it was the excessive amount of gluten being served at our local restaurants and diners,”

This is nuts. Comparing gluten to tobacco. How long until academics here demand a gluten tax?

Some people are gluten intolerant and/or have coeliac disease. Gluten is very harmful to them. That is why food labels carry details of gluten on them, and almost every restaurant now marks out gluten-free dishes. A family member is gluten intolerant, so I’m very aware on how harmful gluten can be to them.

But there is a world of difference between saying gluten is harmful to those who can’t tolerate it, and gluten is harmful to everyone – it isn’t. The idea of a gluten-free zone is activism at its worse.

Hat Tip: Tim Blair

UPDATE: Silly me. I missed the satire tag on Tim Blair’s page. My only excuse is the satire was believable!

1. Australia has every right to deport non-citizens who commit crimes
2. The threshold of those who have been sentenced to one or more years in prison doesn’t seem unreasonable
3. It would be sensible if Australia used some discretion based on the seriousness of the crime, and how long the person has lived in Australia
4. Ideally the deportation decision and appeal should occur while the person is serving their sentence, so they get deported immediately on release
5. If there is a gap between the prison sentence and the conclusion of the deportation process, then the person facing deportation should not be held in custody unless there is reason to think they are going to go into hiding
6. If any potential deportee is held in custody, it should be on mainland Australia. There is no good reason to shift these people off-shore
7. If you don’t wish to get deported then don’t commit any serious crimes in Australia
8. If you do wish to stay in Australia and do wish to be a criminal, you should become a citizen first!

Few people mourned England getting knocked out early, but it was a shame to see Wales, Ireland and Scotland all exit the World Cup as they put up spirited performances.

South Africa only scraped home 23 to 19 against Wales

Ireland were competitive with Argentina for a while but Argentina then piled it on win 43 to 20.

And a thriller of a match as Australia only won with a final minute penalty to beat Scotland 35 to 34. Scotland played an amazing games.

I’m actually looking forward to Argentina playing Australia in the 2nd semi-final. If both teams played like they did today, Argentina could win.

NZ’s chances are looking quite reasonable at this stage. We were the only semifinalist to easily win our quarter, and smashed France. If we play the next two games as we did against France, we should win.

But if we play below our best, and Australia, Argentina or South Africa recover some form then it can be all over in 80 minutes.

Current betfair odds are:

• NZ 1.64
• Australia 4.4
• South Africa 8.8
• Argentina 18

The Herald reports:

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark would be an ideal candidate to head reform of Fifa, a prominent whistleblower says.

Bonita Mersiades, who was part of the Australian bid team for the 2018 World Cup, has repeated her calls for someone of Clark’s stature to lead reform of Fifa.

Mersiades presented evidence to the Fifa corruption inquiry chaired by Michael Garcia and is involved in the New Fifa Now campaign.

In an interview with German website zeit.de, she said only an independent person not involved in football could lead the overhaul of Fifa.

“An American would be inappropriate, because US authorities are investigating the Fifa. I think to Kofi Annan or Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and today head of the UN Development Programme,” Marsiades said, according to a translation of the interview.

It’s not a bad idea, as only a total outsider would have credibility.

Stuff reports:

Bringing pandas to the capital would be “playing with fire”, Wellington Zoo’s chief executive says.

Official documents reveal chief executive Karen Fifield suggested snow leopards were a safer option after a meeting with the chief executive at Taronga Zoo in Sydney left her uncomfortable with acquiring pandas. …

Fifield, in an email in March to Kaine Thompson, manager of the Wellington City Council’s chief executive office, wrote that her meeting in Sydney had resulted in a conversation she didn’t really want to hear.

“It was not a good story at all – without central government committing to lots of the ongoing costs, I think I am playing with fire with the zoo’s future if we proceed.” 

She said Taronga was not pushing ahead with getting pandas because of the financial risk beyond the first 18 months.

“They did their own feasibility study and talked to all the US zoos which hold giant pandas. In fact San Diego Zoo tried to give theirs back to China due to ever-increasing costs, but China refused to take them,” she wrote.

“Taronga predicts [capital expense] of $23m plus … and they predict they would be $2m per annum in the red for [operating expense] beyond 18 months.”

The Council should listen to the zoo chief executive and drop the idea.

The Herald editorial:

Labour needs to project the image of a fresh, new potential government.

Ms Ardern can help project that image. Ms King cannot. The bigger problem for Mr Little may be that Ms Ardern probably projects that image better than he does, and the last thing he needs is a deputy whose promotion might cause her to be seen as a rival to himself. Ms Ardern no doubt would deny any wish to replace him, and mean it, but if her public reception was much better than his, she would be a contender.

That is the trouble. Ardern as Deputy Leader might soon overtake Little in the Preferred PM polls.

This time next year, if the polls have not improved for Labour, some in the party may well push for yet another change of leader. Having held two contests in the previous term of Parliament, it is running short of candidates. Grant Robertson, who stood in both unsuccessfully, has accepted he will not be the next leader. Ms Ardern, who was going to be Mr Robertson’s deputy had he succeeded, has not been tarnished by the result. She could be a credible candidate; all the more so if by then she has been deputy leader for a year.

That’s almost an endorsement of Ardern to be Leader!

The Herald reports:

The ink is barely dry on the TPP and New Zealand has the prospect of another giant free trade deal in the offing with the European Union taking the first steps towards an FTA with New Zealand.

It was announced early this morning that the EU Commission will seek to negotiate separate FTAs with both New Zealand and Australia as part of its trade strategy for the next four years.

The caveat is that talks will take in account “EU agricultural sensitivities.”

That’s great news.

It won’t be a gold standard one as the EU Common Agricultural Policy is too entrenched. But if we can make progress towards liberalisation, that would be excellent.

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told the New Zealand Herald after the release of the strategy that it made political and economic sense to hold talks with New Zealand.

“When I started this job [a year ago] I was a bit surprised that we have free trade agreements either concluded or ongoing with so many part of the world but not with New Zealand and Australia who are national allies, friends, partners in so many other issues.”

Talks were happening already to establish the level of ambition which would be announced soon.

Yep long overdue.

Agriculture in the EU is still heavily subsidised, with payments under the Common Agriculture Policy accounting for 40 per cent of the EU budget but the levels of subsidy are reducing over time.

Ridiculous. NZ is proof that the agricultural sector actually does better without subsidies.