RWC Free to Air Rights Sold...... To Sharples?

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.

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.

"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.

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 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!

Qaulity (or lack thereof) of School Principals

Is it just me, or are the quaility of principals getting poorer and poorer by the day. Over the past few weeks there have been serveral incidents that required the attention of principals from several different schools. From the Kelston vs. Auckland Grammar rugby brawl to the horrific school invasion at Lynfield College, Principals have been required to show strong leadership and maintain a level head, something that seems difficult for a few highly paid school administrators.

Incase you didn't know, the the semi-finals of the Auckand Secondary Schools Rugby Championship was played between Kelston Boys 1st XV and Auckland Grammar's 1st XV. It was a hard fought game, literally, in which both teams showed good skill and strength. The real news began after Auckland Grammar scored the try to seal it in the final minutes. A few punches turned into an all-in brawl which allegdly invloved over 100 students and by-standers. You would think that such a display would mean that principals from both schools would investigate their own players, right? Well, sort of, while the Kelston Boys principal accepted that this was the responsibility of some of it's players John Morris, Auckland Grammar school's principal, thought that it was all Kelston's fault. He stated that his players didn't start it so they shouldn't be punished for the most part. A few 2nd XV players were suspended but everyone else was preparing for the final against Mount Albert Grammar the following week. Morris essentially stated that no matter how his players behaved winning the championship is more important. This was quite a poor display of leadership and is good insight into the kind of things Auckland Grammar deem acceptable. For the principal of a well respected school to say that we're not going to take any responsibility is just disgraceful and slightly disturbing.


Then there is the Sideswipe debacle. The New Zealand Herald column points out funny things that people may not have known. It is generally run by emails sent in by readers and is just a bit of fun really. A topic that came up was the uniform rules enforced by some highschools. Readers pointed out that some of the rules enforced by schools were rediculus. The article stated that "Socks up, shirts tucked, hair length, no jewellery and clean shoes are reasonable expectations, but most students who have written in think the worst rule is no singlets allowed." It went on to point out some experiences sent in. The article didn't really need a response and as I know of someone that attends one of the schools in question I know that for the most part it is true. But instead of justifying the rules (which I accept is a difficult thing to do as they have little correlation to learning) John Morris once again decided to deny it completely. He felt the need to send in his own public response which was published a litte while later. He writes "Boys are indeed allowed to wear singlets". He goes on to say that if singlets are worn they must not be seen.But if that isn't enough he puts in an ad for the uniform shop as well stating that "The school in fact sells V-neck blue polyprop singlets for boys to wear" . The only problem with this of course, is that many people would not want to pay for what is essentially a piece of clothing used to keep warm. Again this is just an other example of worrying too much about looking good and not enough about actual education. Mount Roskill Grammar School's principal, Greg Watson, took a more subtle approach. He decided to publish a small paragraph in the school newsletter stating that "This [Sideswipe] item was inaccurate". He then goes on to say the funniest thing I have ever heard "We encourage students to wear singlets under their blouses and shirts". The statement is just an outright lie. I know of students that have had their thermals confiscated and told to buy $100 school jackets. The fact that the principals decided to lie show just how crazy the rules are.

The Lynfield college school invasion was a horrific incident and for the most part it was dealt with swiftly and strictly. The only odd thing I found was Steve Bovaird's smile throughout several television interview. In the TV 1 interview he says that he is "appauled" by this but his facial expression is one of happyness, joy and laughter. It's just a little bit odd really. If he can't keep a straight face on TV then he shouldn't front up or the interview, it just belittles a very serious situation.

I was always of the belife that principals were like Prime Ministers. They were meant to lead schools to success. Their job has never specifically been to target the appearence of the students but rather their academic results. The obnoxious behavouir of John Morris and the lies published by Greg Watson just show the real quality of principals running our schools. I suggest that they focus on getting students to pass rather than worrying too much about what they're wearing. A teacher recently told me that "conformity is important and standards have to be set" This is true and I agree completely with the statement but the standard set has to be a reasonable one. You wouldn't hold retail staff to the same standard as lawyers, it just doesn't make sense. Bovaird's almost cheeky grin was just an unfortunate incident that was kind of funny really.

I just hope that these principals and the policies enforced by them don't have and adverse effect on our students. After all we wouldn't want to discourage a genius because he's cold.

First Post

After about an hour of setting up this blog it's finally ready to go. From changing theme to changing the title the first post is here. NewZ is a blog by me about New Zealand news. Hence the name NewZ... get it?? Well right now i'm in the middle of exams so don't expect much but give it about a week and i'll be ready to wow the world with my political insight and honest opinions.

I will look at everything from entertainment news to sport and maybe even a little bit of art (woops I mean rubbish ;) ) So watch out. I am ready to take the world by storm (or maybe just New Zealand).