Okay, so the above headline is slightly misleading. Shaples didn't buy the rights but he might as well have. The Herald reported today that Pita Sharples, the co-leader of the Maori party and minister of Maori affairs gave "his blessing for taxpayer funds to support a Maori Television Service (MTS) bid for the 2011 Rugby World Cup's free-to-air broadcast rights, thought to be as high as $3 million."
Sharples did this without consulting the cabinet and it seems that he will not have to justify his decision. MTS, which already receives $16.5 million ($33 million according to Micael Laws) in government subsidies, will receive a further subsidy of around $3 million to bid for the free to air rights for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. I should clarify though that these rights are already owned by Sky TV and the free to air rights will probably include highlights packages and delayed coverage.
The issue the government has here is that it owns two television stations, TVNZ and MTS. TVNZ is a profit making state owned enterprise (SOE) where as MTS is a money sucking maori television channel almost completely funded by the taxpayer. If the government is going to fund MTS's bid for the rights why shouldn't TVNZ get funded as well? It seems that Sharples isn't really worried about the public's ability to view the matches free-to-air instead he just wants to promote MTS at whatever cost.
While the government tells us to tighten out belts, Sharples is spending up large. Not only is he spending $3 million but he is spending $3 million on something the government has nothing to do with. The free-to-air rights negotioations between the Sky and free-to-air broadcasters is a commercial negotiation that has little to do with the government. The government funded Maori TV now has a major advantage over TV3 and TVNZ who are unlikly to get the rights now because they just can't match that sort of an offer.
The $3 million is coming out of existing (taxpayer) funds for Maori development and does not need specific cabinet approval but you have to wonder if this $3 million actually helps Maori development at all. Shaples will argue that if MTS get the rights then more people will watch so the channel will grow but what happens after the World Cup? Viewership will go down again and MTS will return to the deep dark depths of minority television. If the government wants to increase it's dividends received from TVNZ it might be better off investing the money into TVNZ. At least the SOE would return some sort of a profit from advertising and is more likly to retain viewers after the World Cup therefore increasing it's profits in the future.
Frankly, what Sharples is doing is a disgrace. The government should not get invovled in commercial matters that have little to do with them and if it must get involved then it should do so in the most sensible manner. The broadcasting of the RWC 2011 on Maori TV isn't going to help Maori development it's just going to torture viewers with poor commentary and primary school like Maori language lessons. Sharples should focus on doing something good for Maoris not "ghettoising (sic) rugby" as Laws puts it.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Is she off her Tolley?
Today the Christchurch Press came out with proof that Anne Tolley, the minister of education, signed off on papers that reduced the number of staff at schools.
Tolley is obviously in-competent and stupid. She says that she wants to improve the education sector and provide a better education for all kids in New Zealand, how did she expect to achieve this by laying off primary school teachers? Does she expect kids to learn on their own? Tolley says she didn't fully understand the proposal but she signed off on it anyway. Her lack of comprehension is an excellent example of how the NZ education system failed to educate her to a high standard. Why do we have a minister that is not able to comprehend what she reads? Is this the standard put forward by the National government? If so, NZ should be very concerned.
The change for the sake of change everyone is after might just ruin this country.
"The Government planned to lay off the equivalent of 772 fulltime teachers, but backed down days before the 1106 affected schools were to be told."Tolley decided to back out of the plan just days before the May 28 budget when she realised that so many jobs would be lossed.
"I don't think that I thought they were actual staff. I didn't realise that they were actually all in place," she said. "I still thought that we were talking about it as being in the future."Obviously, Tolley is under the impression that the ministry pays imaginary staff that can be laid off at any time. She also implies that if the cuts had been in the future she would have no problem with it. This is concerning as I don't see how the education system can be improved by cutting staff numbers.
"...the plan was so far advanced that a communication proposal was agreed on. The proposal mapped out ways to "help minimise concerns" and stop schools from sabotaging the new national standards in protest."Obviously the minister knew that this wasn't a good look so she had the spin doctors create a story to make it all look credible and responsible as if she was making progress by cutting staff.
Tolley is obviously in-competent and stupid. She says that she wants to improve the education sector and provide a better education for all kids in New Zealand, how did she expect to achieve this by laying off primary school teachers? Does she expect kids to learn on their own? Tolley says she didn't fully understand the proposal but she signed off on it anyway. Her lack of comprehension is an excellent example of how the NZ education system failed to educate her to a high standard. Why do we have a minister that is not able to comprehend what she reads? Is this the standard put forward by the National government? If so, NZ should be very concerned.
The change for the sake of change everyone is after might just ruin this country.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Executive's Salary: Get Over it
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald today says that "You could work every day of your life, for two lifetimes, and still earn less than what Australia's top executives are paid in one year." People seem to be outraged that CEOs of big time companies get, on average, 200 times the average salary of an Australian worker.
The outrage is understandable. It's a lot of money of course. Some executives would be paid over $10 million. What is surprising though, is the number of people that have come out and said that we should cap these salaries. It should be noted that the top to earners on this list receievd bonuses and salary increases which coincide with increased shareholder returns. People like John Minto, however, have come up with this ridiculous idea that executives should be stopped from earning money. Minto suggests that the government imposes some sort of price ceiling which would stop all salaries going over a certain amount. This idea isn't short of stupid and idiotic. Limiting executive pay would only cause big business to shift overseas and take the jobs that come with them.
One of the sectors that can have this sort of a pay cap is the fianancial sector. At the G20 meeting the leaders decided that the salaries of workers (executives I guess) in the fianancial sector will be linked to performance. This si a good idea for the fianancial sector as it stops CEOs from receiving large salaries even as the instituion collapses. This works for the financial sector but it wouldn't work for private companies in other sectors. This is because executives are not likely to get their exorbatant salary if the company is going bankrupt so linking the salary to performance achieves very little. Say Telecom's profit is down one year because of the billions they are spending on installing new infrastructure. The CEO is increasing investment, this is a good thing for the economy, but it looks like the business is losing money so the CEO would have to take a pay cut. You don't want to discourage investment.
The reason that CEOs get paid so much is because there are few people that can do what they do. As remuneration consultant, Peter McAuley put it "It is an issue of supply and demand.". The government should not interfere with the private sector unless it has a direct effect on the country. How companies run their business is up to them and the shareholders and the board can decide how much to pay their executives.
Instead of trying to bring their salaries down to our level we should be aspiring to earn as much as them and be as successful as them. No CEO go their job for being an idiot.
The outrage is understandable. It's a lot of money of course. Some executives would be paid over $10 million. What is surprising though, is the number of people that have come out and said that we should cap these salaries. It should be noted that the top to earners on this list receievd bonuses and salary increases which coincide with increased shareholder returns. People like John Minto, however, have come up with this ridiculous idea that executives should be stopped from earning money. Minto suggests that the government imposes some sort of price ceiling which would stop all salaries going over a certain amount. This idea isn't short of stupid and idiotic. Limiting executive pay would only cause big business to shift overseas and take the jobs that come with them.
One of the sectors that can have this sort of a pay cap is the fianancial sector. At the G20 meeting the leaders decided that the salaries of workers (executives I guess) in the fianancial sector will be linked to performance. This si a good idea for the fianancial sector as it stops CEOs from receiving large salaries even as the instituion collapses. This works for the financial sector but it wouldn't work for private companies in other sectors. This is because executives are not likely to get their exorbatant salary if the company is going bankrupt so linking the salary to performance achieves very little. Say Telecom's profit is down one year because of the billions they are spending on installing new infrastructure. The CEO is increasing investment, this is a good thing for the economy, but it looks like the business is losing money so the CEO would have to take a pay cut. You don't want to discourage investment.
The reason that CEOs get paid so much is because there are few people that can do what they do. As remuneration consultant, Peter McAuley put it "It is an issue of supply and demand.". The government should not interfere with the private sector unless it has a direct effect on the country. How companies run their business is up to them and the shareholders and the board can decide how much to pay their executives.
Instead of trying to bring their salaries down to our level we should be aspiring to earn as much as them and be as successful as them. No CEO go their job for being an idiot.
The English Debacle
Recently Bill English, the Minister of Fianance, has come under fire for the housing allowance claims he has made. Currently, all MPs are entitled to an allowance that covers their cost for living away from home while serving in parliment. This system in itself is silly as MPs are paid quite well to perform this service so an allowance shouldn't be needed anyway but none the less it's there and almost every MP uses it. Ministers of course get more because they are Ministers.
The problem English has is that he has claimed, for many years now, a housing allowance when it seems that he has been living in Wellington. He has a whole bunch of kids that go to school in Wellington, he has a wife who works in Wellington, he has a large house in Wellington and he also works in Wellington. So an intelligent person would think that he isn't really living away from home, right? Well not Bill English. In the worst economic recession the country has seen in a while and as Bill tells the public to start saving he himself is claiming an exorbatant allowance. It hardly seems fair. English enjoys a six figure salary, a nice house and enough money to send all six or seven (or what ever ridiculus number he has) kids to private schools while the average joe gets laid off and is struggling to live on the dole.
The thing that amazes me is that English gets paid upwards of $200.000 a year. What's $30,000 to him? This is a concerning trend in the National party. They always seem to be looking after themselves and worrying about New Zealand later. For example, the first the John Key did once he was elected was raising the salary for all MPs. That's right, in the middle of a massive worldwide economic disaster, he raises the already high salary for MPs.
The government needs to stop worrying about which allowance they are, or aren't, entitled to. They need to do something about the high unemployment and low productivity. The government have many bigger issues to tackle but it seems that lining their own pocket with money is more importanat to them. I guess this is the change that New Zealand wanted. Yeah Right!
The problem English has is that he has claimed, for many years now, a housing allowance when it seems that he has been living in Wellington. He has a whole bunch of kids that go to school in Wellington, he has a wife who works in Wellington, he has a large house in Wellington and he also works in Wellington. So an intelligent person would think that he isn't really living away from home, right? Well not Bill English. In the worst economic recession the country has seen in a while and as Bill tells the public to start saving he himself is claiming an exorbatant allowance. It hardly seems fair. English enjoys a six figure salary, a nice house and enough money to send all six or seven (or what ever ridiculus number he has) kids to private schools while the average joe gets laid off and is struggling to live on the dole.
The thing that amazes me is that English gets paid upwards of $200.000 a year. What's $30,000 to him? This is a concerning trend in the National party. They always seem to be looking after themselves and worrying about New Zealand later. For example, the first the John Key did once he was elected was raising the salary for all MPs. That's right, in the middle of a massive worldwide economic disaster, he raises the already high salary for MPs.
The government needs to stop worrying about which allowance they are, or aren't, entitled to. They need to do something about the high unemployment and low productivity. The government have many bigger issues to tackle but it seems that lining their own pocket with money is more importanat to them. I guess this is the change that New Zealand wanted. Yeah Right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
