I have been surprised at how many people have come up to me saying they don't go to movies but want the DVD. I haven't known the answer to the question ... now I do.
The rental release date is March and the retail date is 2 April.
10. Schoolchildren—Universal Scholarship
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
10. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree that a scholarship for every child, as outlined in my speech to the ACT party conference on Saturday, would increase choice, allow greater diversity and flexibility, and improve educational achievement; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) :No, but I do agree with the member’s opening statement in his speech that education is the key to our long-term prosperity. What I do not agree with is his plan to introduce an education voucher scheme under a new name. Such a scheme would just create winner schools and loser schools, and do nothing to improve overall educational outcomes. Although I disagree with ACT’s voucher plan, I congratulate the party on at least coming up with a policy. That is more than we can say about the National Party.
Rodney Hide: Does the Minister think it is right and fair that families that take responsibility for their children’s education and send their children to an independent school have to pay twice for that privilege, once through their taxes and again through their school fees; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I thought the ACT party stood for choice. Parents do have the choice to send their children to a quality State school or to a private school. The plan by ACT to have a voucher system would simply perpetuate the inequalities we had under bulk funding, which saw the development of winner schools and loser schools.
Dianne Yates: What reports has the Minister seen about the impact of voucher-style education systems?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am aware of research by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research entitled Can Vouchers Deliver Better Education?, which reviews international studies for their relevance to New Zealand. It concludes: “Competition for students by schools does not improve quality, achievement, or access. Such schemes favour a minority at the expense of the majority. Competition among schools is hardest on those serving lower socio-economic communities, and in fact depresses overall educational levels.” These outcomes would never be acceptable to a Labour-led Government, and I would welcome Roger Douglas’s, and, indeed, National’s education spokesperson, Anne Tolley’s, campaigning on just such a policy.
Rodney Hide: Does the Minister feel so strongly against giving parents a choice of school, including independent schools, that he would resign as Minister of Education if that were a condition of support from MMP parties for a future Government?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I think the likelihood of Labour going into coalition with ACT is nil, especially with the addition of Roger Douglas to its party list.
TV3 tonight reported that Sir Roger is speaking to the ACT conference. Good.
It's not enough to change the government. We need a change of policies.
That's Sir Roger's forte.
"I believe Act could have a real role to play next year. I just feel it has an enormous role to play in any centre-right Government."
The IMF estimate Zimbabwe's annual inflation at 150,000 percent.
The price of beer changes even as the bar tender goes to ring it up on the till.
Reserve Bank Governor Dr. G. Gono admits there is a problem and is determined not to have to add another three zeroes to Zimbabwe's bank notes. The band's a bit wider than our one to three but it's a start.
Dr Gono is also not hiking interest rates. His target is the few bad apples -- the cash barons, smugglers and other illicit dealers.
That should knock inflation for six -- just like Muldoon's price-wage freeze.
Read about the the Zim's hyperinflation here.
What to do about it?
We need a systematic approach to fighting poor law often passed with the best of intentions.
For some years the Cabinet have applied in desultory fashion a Regulatory Impact Statement approach to law making. The framework is problem identification, i.e. “market failure”, the alternatives including “do-nothing” and a cost benefit analysis loosely done. The assessment is overseen by the Ministry of Economic Development.
The approach is at present poorly applied. The RIS for the Emissions Trading Scheme failed to establish net benefits and instead declared the benefit to be meeting international commitments! I kid you not. The option of withdrawing from Kyoto is ignored presumably because it is deemed politically unacceptable. The RIS also makes no assessment of the likely intended and unintended costs of introducing an ETS scheme. No cost or benefit estimates are quantified. That is, the RIS was worthless.
I am sceptical of cost-benefit analysis applied to law making. I think the benefits and costs are too tough to measure and are often immeasurable. How do you do a cost-benefit analysis on the Electoral Finance Act’s overturning freedom of speech? And should we overturn fundamental rights because someone thinks that the benefits outweigh the costs?
I don’t think so.
ACT’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill sets out criteria against which law should be assessed, e.g. prospective, not retrospective, upholds property rights, rather than pinches them, etc. That’s the difference between ACT’s Bill and the present RIS.
And here’s another difference. Who should administer the system?
I am not keen on government departments overseeing it like the RIS on the ETS. What government department is going to put up withdrawing from Kyoto is an option? None, in the present climate. Likewise with standing up for our rights.
That’s why I am quite relaxed about having the courts involved in the process. They are independent of government. And they do know about rights and the settlement of conflicts.
If we believe we live in a free society, then we have rights, and Parliament should have to respect those rights, and where’s there’s a dispute it’s quite proper that the courts adjudicate.