Trumpet “work place skills” as one of the BIG SIX economic drivers. Establish a skills forum to drive the skills strategy. Announce that the forum will meet five times in 2010, starting in March, so that early progress can be made. Then forget to call the March meeting, or any others, so that yet another leg of the Governments economic plan turns out to be a hologram.
Loading ...Take an axe to Kiwisaver and halve it. Cancel payments into the Cullen fund. Wait almost two years. Discover that New Zealanders’ don’t save. Set up a committee to find out why.
Loading ...ETS EFFECT: What does ETS do? What’s the affect on farmers? City Dwellers? Communities? On Climate Change? What will the ETS accomplish? Does it go too far? Go far enough? Who’s paying for ETS? Should it be the emitters or the users? What about Carbon Credits—what do they do? Why do we want them?
THE COST & REAL WORLD CHANGES: Now that the ETS has been in effect since July 1st—have you noticed the cost? Is the cost of living more expensive? How can we make effective changes to help the environment? What are small changes can we make—is it about changing light bulbs and riding bikes? Or is there more we can do? And are there some areas the Government should mandate (i.e. Energy Saving Light Bulbs)?
LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 25th of August. 9pm TVNZ 7 Sky 97. Drinking from about 7pm The Panel: Roy knifer John Boscawen, Dr. Russel Norman just back from Holywood, Labour MP Stuart Nash, and National MP Craig Foss.
I haven’t had a chance to look at it properly just yet but here is a summary of the proposed changes, taken from the Government’s press release. I will post thoughts on it later but what do you make of it?
The cabinet paper is on the MoJ website.
Great turnout on a sunny day in Wellington. Strong speeches from a range of people- but the two women who had been unfairly dismissed under the law were the most important for me. Good people, who were doing their best, and fired for no reason. Its just not fair.
Wayne Mapp was meant to open Innovation Expo @ Weltec this morning. He is a no show. Gone into hiding to avoid telling media Heather Roy is truthful. Pity.
Anne Tolley spoke to Roger Kerr and mates about education last night. I trotted along for a listen.
Roger Kerr raised the question of performance pay for teachers. Being the audience it was they all thought performance pay is a good thing. There was no discussion about why they thought it was a good thing, just general agreement that it should happen.
The question I have for those who support performance pay for teachers is – which part of a teacher’s performance will they get paid for?
Common sense says teachers should get paid more if they get students to achieve the National Standards.
So what happens in those schools and regions where students enter a classroom at the beginning of the year well below the national standard? Why would a teacher want to teach in a school like that where despite his/her best efforts the student makes heaps of progress but fails to get over the National Standard ‘line’.
It would simply be a business decision for a teacher to teach in a school in a ‘good’ area, where even mediocre teaching can get a student over the standard. This will result in a migration of teachers to ‘easy’ schools and disadvantaged schools would struggle exasperating underachievement.
Digging deeper, what happens if a teacher does get the struggling student over the line in reading and writing, but fails to in maths?
What happens if a teacher gets 24 out of thirty kids over the national standards line, but six students don’t make it? Is the teacher a good teacher or bad teacher? Eighty percent success isn’t too bad, or is it?
Trouble is that figure equates to 1 in 5 students failing.
Let’s dig deeper still, in the maths curriculum there are 5 strands – number, statistics, measurement, algebra and geometry. Is a teacher a good or bad teacher if the student meets an achievement benchmark in algebra, geometry, statistics and measurement – but not number?
Again that is an 80% success rate, achieving in 4 out of 5 strands in the one curriculum area. But we want kids to be able to achieve in numeracy and literacy, and failing in the ‘number’ strand means the student isn’t numerate.
Is a teacher good or bad if they focus on ‘number’ over statistics, algebra, measurement and geometry?
Are we saying these other strands aren’t important?
If my receipt of a performance pay bonus depended on me making sure kids were numerate over statist-erate, or measure-ate, or algeb-rate or geome-rate, I would focus on numeracy – statistics and everything else can go to hell.
And let’s look deeper again. A class of thirty, 5 strands in maths alone, 30 x 5 = 150 targets a teacher has to achieve to be deemed successful, just in maths. Maths is generally taught about 5 hours a week. Bugger that, if my performance pay bonus depends on the class achieving in maths, I’ll dedicate most of the week to that. A balanced curriculum can get stuffed.
That’s not even counting the 4 strands in science (or is science no longer important), 3 strands in technology (or is technology [R&D] no longer important), 5 different styles of writing, oral language, 4 health and PE strands, dance, drama, and other arts strands, languages etc.
How many strands does a teacher have to make sure each student achieves in before s/he deserves a performance bonus?
Multiply the number of students in a class by the number of strands across the curriculum and a single teacher has thousands of performance targets to meet a year.
Then there are all the other things that teachers do besides making kids learn.
Do they deserve performance pay for – 1) doing duty?, 2) coaching sports teams? 3) being associate teachers of student teachers? 4) being tutor teachers for beginning teachers? 5) liaising with parents, whanau and iwi? 6) taking after school music or art classes? 7) after school tutoring? 
leading professional development and appraisal of peers? 9) organising school discos? 10) fundraising? 11) organising the school play? 12) organising the school fair? 13) organising sports trips? 14) organising the school library? 15) organising the swimming sports, athletics day, 40 hour famine, breakfast club, buses, cross country, art exhibition, assemblies, class camps, community problems solving, peer mediators, restorative justice programme, assessment moderation sessions, interschool quality learning circles, professional development programme, etc, etc, etc.
Is the teacher who just teaches, a better or worse teacher than the one who runs around and gets involved in the corporate life of the school?
Common sense would say that the teacher who just focuses on the classroom would get better results, so teachers should just teach. To hell with everything else.
Roger Kerr made the comment, “How hard can it be? Surely schools aren’t that complex?”
I’m interested in the performance pay model Roger has in mind.
There’s a lot of chat at the moment about the drinking age and simple straw polls on the position of various MPs.
I want to throw some thoughts into the mix- the kind that get missed in a yes or no answer.
I believe we have a problem with the way we drink in New Zealand. I have never thought politicians alone can solve this issue, but we certainly have a role to play.
But the “we” element in all of this is important. For far too long we have focused on one particular set of people as both the catalyst of our problems and the source of all of our solutions – the young.
It’s easy to see how this happens. Many of us drink to varying degrees, but don’t wish to assume that we are part of the problem (and many will not be). The default option can become to apportion blame to other groups, and that often includes young people. And it’s easily done. We can all fall back on personal or anecdotal evidence of some young people, well under the age of 18, drinking in public and in private spaces, sometimes to excess.
But much of this is already happening outside of the laws we currently have. And I’m also sure a good chunk of people who support an age change are not doing so because its only 18 and 19 years olds (the group effected by a change in the minimum age of purchase) they see as the problem. So lets start being honest.
This is not about young people, this is about all of us.
Every time I have asked young people about alcohol in their lives, they talk about what they see around them; not just of the behaviour of their peers, but of adults, parents, caregivers. The ones who we know through research are supplying young people with alcohol a majority of the time, the ones who have been part of setting and maintaining New Zealand’s approach to drinking, and who are statistically almost as equally likely to drink to get drunk as a young person is.
That is why my position on alcohol reform is this: I support the age staying at 18 because I don’t believe shifting the age addresses our fundamental issues.
If a split age is the compromise that will at least stop a blanket increase, then I’ll consider that. But I’d much rather consider a comprehensive package of reforms that finally acknowledges that this is our collective problem, not just the problem of our ‘youff’.
Stephen Franks featured on The Radio NZ Panel on Act’s firing of Roy today.
Decision-time looms on the future of any version of public service television. As early as today, Cabinet will consider what to do, if anything, once the funding for TVNZ’s non-commercial channels, 6 + 7, runs out next year. These channels form the backbone of the Freeview service, set up to provide a digital competitor to the Murdoch-dominated Sky TV pay channels. About one in four NZ homes are now receiving Freeview – half those with Sky.
My understanding is that the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and Treasury’s Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit are juggling three possible outcomes which reflect the lack of coherence within Cabinet about public service broadcasting:
1/ Do nothing, leave it up to TVNZ to sort it out, unassisted.
2/ Create a small independent entity to run 7 (and possibly 6), perhaps with some contracted Radio NZ services
3/ Morph TVNZ 7 into Radio NZ
None of these options seem likely to be funded to work. viably.
For about $15m a year, we’ve had two non-commercial channels – extraodinary value thanks to Steve Maharey and TVNZ’s stretch of resources. A renewed arrangement could look at all the funding options and provide a huge opportunity to re-define how Channel 7 operates and its relationship with TVNZ.
Perhaps, just perhaps, some in Cabinet might see that as a nation we need a viable alternative to an increasingly commercial model where even news bulletins are shaped around minute by minute ratings; and how TVNZ’s value to the Crown and taxpayers is diminishing as Sky beams into ever more homes while audiences also fragment to new media.
Some thoughts on that next post.
I have taken the most unusual step of reposting a blog I wrote a couple of months ago on income splitting. This is because as of 16th August (apparently) income splitting is back on the legislative agenda. Unbelievable. Would have thought that $500m/ann would be better off spent on creating jobs and economic growth rather than handing it back to those who are about to receive a big tax cut anyway. Is this an admission that there simply is no plan except give money to those on high incomes? Certainly appears that way.!
As the IRD noted in its report on income splitting “it might be perceived as unfair that the benefit from income splitting increases as primary earner income increases, providing more benefit to couples with higher incomes”
Part of the supply-and-confidence agreement between Peter Dunne and the National party is National supporting tax legislation around income splitting. I questioned English about the possibility of income splitting legislation when he appeared before the Finance and Expenditure select committee recently, and he pretty much ruled it out. Not surprising, considering the cost is estimated by the IRD to be around $500m per ann.
When I questioned Dunne at FEC a couple of weeks later, however, he cited the supply and confidence agreement. Earlier press statements seem to suggest that Dunne is serious about pursuing this course of action.
So, does income splitting actually help those who really need it: those who are torn between going back to work fulltime, working part-time and/or staying at home to look after children? (Dunne’s proposal is only applicable to families with dependant children).
The simple answer is no. Working for Families is in place to help struggling families. Dunne suggests keeping both. The median household income is about $60k and the median wage is around $32k. Therefore, many households have both parents working full-time now and would not benefit from an income splitting regime. Those families who genuinely do have a ‘choice’ around whether one or both parents work, tend to be those who earn the most – makes sense. ‘Choice’ implies a level of economic freedom: necessity does not.
How would income splitting benefit kiwis on different salaries? Outlined below are 3 scenarios (assuming a two parent household with at least one dependant child): ann salary $40k, $100k, and $140k. JK’s tax cut figure is $$ in the hand per week before GST, ETS, inflation etc. IS = income splitting. This is also a net figure from the IRD’s calculations in a 2009 paper. The actual figures will have changed slightly under the new tax thresholds, but you get the point…
$40k – JK’s tax cut – $23/wk + IS $23/wk = $46/wk
$100k – JK’s tax cut – $69/wk + IS $163/wk = $232/wk
$140k – JK’s tax cut – $108/wk + IS $200/wk = >$300/wk
So you see. If income splitting is to go through (and I very much doubt it will – but we will watch with interest as Dunne and Key/English fight this one out), once again, those on the highest salaries will be the real benefactors. Also remember that around 70% of Kiwis earn less than $40k. Even English admits income splitting is not well targeted. Would have to agree with him just this once Mr Dunne.
The Otago Daily Times has been hot on the heels of dodgy pokie trust scams for some time. Today they have a story about an alleged “money-go-round” involving several south Auckland pokie machine venues and southern racing clubs. Personally I find the idea that the profits from pokie venues in South Auckland are being channelled to racing clubs in the lower South Island pretty appalling.
Pokie trusts should be investing the money collected through pokie machines back into the communities they are taken from. In recent months we’ve seen countless examples of pokie trusts using money that should have been applied for charitable purposes to compete with each other for venues, refurbish venues, and even wine and dine people at flash restaurants. It’s time to end the rorts.
I questioned the Internal Affairs Minister Nathan Guy about this when he appeared before the Select Committee during the Estimates process. He referred almost every question to officials. When I asked if he thought the legislation needed changing, he said no. In other words, he’s washing his hands of the problem. That’s not good enough. It’s time for him to earn his ministerial salary…
TREAT YOUR CHILDREN WELL: There was another shocking death of a young infant at the hands of a man in its life last week. On average 8 young kiwi kids are killed every year by a family member with some experts saying it’s more like one a month. What are going on in our homes? Why is violence such a problem? How do we stop “shaken-baby syndrome?” Is it putting more information to the public via advertisements or is it about changing laws? How do assist CYFS to do their job?
OVERSEAS BLUDGERS: They get an education here and then they head overseas leaving their student debt behind. National is looking to find a new way to get their money back. What’s the best way to collect loans off wayward students? Do we need more carrot than stick?
LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 4th of August. TVNZ7 Sky97. 9pm Drinking from 7ish. Our Panel: Green Party MP Kevin Hague, Labour MP Carol Beaumont, and National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga.
Part 1 of this post noted the end of the “Washington Consensus” in economics. Part 2 noted that newly naked economists need some new clothes. In this part I want to stimulate discussion about priorities for the NZ debate going forward.
In the 2010 Budget debate I reckon Labour won the argument that average Kiwis will be worse off after 5.9% inflation next year devours their “tax switch”.
The next stage of the debate will focus on which policies deliver on rebalancing our economy and leaving NZ families better off.
Let’s cut to the chase on “rebalancing”.
The NZ economy is “unbalanced” because:
The heart of the rebalancing process therefore requires:
Policies that would logically achieve that include:
We need a government that has a credible and coherent economic strategy. Confidence is eroded by stop-start, poll-driven initiatives.
Our future is weakened by an underlying agenda that will worsen inequality, driving wedges between Kiwis, their communities and their environment.
Time for a reality check. This is not only a government that has no coherent plan to credibly achieve the rebalancing NZ needs.
Its short-termism and flip flops mask an underlying agenda – whether made explicit or kept implicit – that is individualistic and materialistic.
It does not reflect the Kiwi way, nor embody our highest aspirations.
Their policies are flawed. Their vision is narrow. Their time is limited.
Last week’s release of the Government’s Energy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy contained a lot about fossils, and very little else. Reading their document, you get the sense that they have no new ideas on how to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, or to move to a lower-pollution economy.
I think Gerry needs a bit of help, so here is an idea.
Labor in Australia is mooting a cleaner car rebate, offering a $2000 boost to new car buyers trading in pre-1995 cars. The scheme is aimed to get 200,000 older vehicles off the road, cut transport sector emissions by nearly 3 million tonnes, and allow for tough new mandatory vehicle emissions regulations to enter into force in 2015. Their rebate would take effect from 1 January 2011.
It is the kind of measure envisaged by the New Zealand Transport Strategy in the last Labour-led Government back in 2008. One of the goals of the Transport Strategy then was to get New Zealand’s transport sector emissions down by 50% by 2040
A ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme is just one of the complementary measures, which could have been funded via Labour’s ETS. Before it was amended by National last year to subsidise emitters at the expense of households, the ETS would have made revenues available from the sale of emissions permits to pay for exactly this sort of measure.
New Zealand’s car fleet has an average age of 12 years. A ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme would help kiwi households struggling with higher living costs to modernise their cars. It would help them more easily choose safer, modern, lower-emission, cheaper to run vehicles that would be better for the environment.
Instead of rolling back proposals to lower pollution, like the biofuels obligation; hiding behind the recession to produce a temporary drop in emissions; or pretending that its watered-down ETS will make a difference, the Government should look seriously at schemes like the cleaner car rebate as a practical way to reduce emissions and give families a helping hand.
There is now a lot of evidence that second language learning stimulates neural pathways (makes brains work better). Extra languages can promote cultural understanding and help us with trade. Is it time to move forward on this ?
Loading ...
