Auckland couple Craig and Carla Bradley often have only $150 a week left for food. “We have gone two days without food just so the kids can eat. That’s when I was pregnant, too,” says Mrs Bradley, 29.

Monday’s Herald piece focuses on Auckland and looks at the census data. Good reporting has highlighted that median incomes for areas across the city have departed from their historical tie to the regional average income. Basically this provides evidence that the earnings gap between rich and poor parts of Auckland has increased. We must remember this data is from the 2006 census before the financial crisis and so we can expect the current situation to be somewhat worse given that the number of people unemployment has risen from 80,792 people when the census was taken to 171,225 part way through last year.

The National Government has no clear economic plan to address poverty. Its 15 post-election economic priorities do not address the issue of poverty. Mums and dads who go without food so that their children can eat will not have spare change to invest in SOEs. National and Labour’s tax policy have left NZ with lower tax rates in the OECD for those in the highest income bracket.

On the other hand, we have the world’s most comprehensive GST, one of the most regressive taxes that impacts those on lowest incomes disproportionately. Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is busy consulting on her Green Paper on vulnerable children, but until we address the root causes of inequality and child poverty we will simply be papering over the cracks.

The most chilling part of the Herald series so far has been a quote from today’s article on tax from a mother described as “comfortable”:

“During the election was when it really hit me,” says Anita. “I had been to have a facial. Then I went to a supermarket and did the weekly shop. “I drove past one of the Labour billboards about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That’s $600 a week. I thought, ‘I’ve just spent that this morning having a facial, buying products from the beauty therapist and doing the shopping. How can a family live on that?”

Compare that to the plight of Lisa, a mother Metiria spoke to last year as part of our plan to bring 100,000 children out of poverty by 2014:

“How do you budget when your necessities cost more than you earn? An extra $60 a week would mean I could provide healthier food, my daughter could participate in more out of school activities, I’d get my bills paid faster so I could benefit from prompt payment discounts, and I wouldn’t have to panic if one or both of us needed the doctor unexpectedly.”

The Green Party takes an holistic view of inequality and poverty. New Zealand’s appalling rates of violence are partly a result of growing inequality. In its Green Paper, the Government seeks merely to address the results of poverty.  By contrast, the Green Party has a plan to address the causes. Until we start to do this I anticipate more sobering stories like those in the Herald this week.

I wonder whether he had thought through the implications for democracy of preventing one of the major newspapers in New Zealand from working in Parliament.

Aside from being heavy-handed, all these restrictions on what people can and cannot photograph in Parliament look a bit precious, and have the effect, intended or not, of further divorcing ordinary people from Parliament.

Instead of being encouraged to turn up to Parliament and view it as ‘their place’ all these rules, and the sometimes officious way people sitting in the Gallery are treated, alienate people and make Parliament feel like some other planet, rather than ‘their place’.

I note that MPs in the UK Parliament have been debating similar concerns – namely, that all the tightening of security and rules around visiting their Parliament are making Parliament seem ever more divorced from ordinary people.

As well as undermining freedom of expression in the media, I fear the Speakers ruling could have a similar effect here.

You could animate the scene, cut in Taylor Swift singing, autotune it: your imagination is the only boundary to what you can do with the video.

Email me a link to your mash up and on Wednesday next week I’ll post the best one here on Frogblog and pimp it out on my social media.

It isn’t a state secret – although whether he is currently working for Mossad may be. Mr Magnus says on his website that he has “served in the Israeli Defence Force in an elite paratrooper battalion specialising in special operations. …and served also in the intelligence community.”

Of course, that doesn’t prove that Mossad was involved in sending the team out here, but it is an important piece of information as we try to work out what really happened.

The Press reports that Hilik’s team was not entirely excluded from CBD. It was allowed inside the cordon to a backpackers to retrieve the personal effects of Gabi Ingel and his companion Ofer Levy.

The New Zealand government needs to give us a more details about what it knows about Hilik’s SAR team.

Apparently they commissioned some research in May “…on a range of issues pertinent to the Trust”, and have now sent a letter to all MPs because ” …[the Trust] now have a poll about crime in New Zealand and are interested in [MP's] opinions”.

The first question asks if prison sentences for violent crimes in NZ are too short, about right, or too long.  Now I’m not sure how many MPs keep a careful track of what sentences are being handed down for violent crimes, the circumstances of each case, and read the full judgement, but I would have thought that level of detailed understanding would be necessary to form a view.  But I guess we can all have ‘an opinion’  based on what we hear on talkback radio or at parties.

The next question asks if the level of violent crime in NZ is getting worse, about the same, or getting better.  Putting aside niggly queries like whether they are  asking about frequency or intensity,  the ’level’ of crime of any sort is a matter of fact rather than of opinion.  The police and the courts do record such things, after all.  There is also the point that an increase in reported crime, violent or otherwise, can sometimes be a good thing, indicating that people are less inclined to turn a blind eye.

We are asked for an opinion as to whether ‘…punishments given for Youth Offending such as graffiti, vandalism and petty theft [are] too soft, about right, or too hard’.  Again, this assumes a level of knowledge and an associated ability to make informed judgements,  as per their first question.

We are also asked for an opinion as to whether multiple sentences should be cumulative or served consecutively, and whether ‘DNA [should] be recorded for any person arrested for a crime’.  I assume they mean ‘every’ person, though I’m not sure what value there would be in taking a DNA sample from an accountant charged with fraudulent use of a document, or a company director responsible for an illegal prospectus.

You’ve probably worked out by now that I won’t be responding to the Trust’s questionnaire.  It is a foolish piece of pseudo – research, and no doubt the conclusions / headlines they endeavour to extract from it will be equally foolish.

If you want to read some useful and well founded research into the causes of crime in New Zealand, and some practical and thoughtful proposals about how to make our communities safer by reducing the incidence of crime and recidivism, have a look at Robson Hanan Trust,  the Prison Fellowship NZ , or even the Ministry of Justice. 

The causes of crime are complex and multi-faceted, and need to be addressed on many fronts by  public and community agencies working in a coordinated fashion.  Cheap slogans and uninformed ‘opinions’ offer nothing of value or substance, and should be treated accordingly.

In this podcast, Green Party ICT Spokesperson Gareth Hughes talks about the new law – what it means, why non-nerds should be worried about it too, and what can be done from here.

If you’re reading this on Friday 27 May, you’ve got the rest of today to make a submission – click here for a form submission to adapt.

If you missed Gareth’s virtual public meeting on this issue, you can download the full audio here, or follow NZGreens on twitter for a link to the video when it’s posted.

Showing the power of social media, this week’s track is Shuffling Joe, by Dub Asylum. Crowd-sourced from twitter! Thanks Dub Asylum. It’s file sharing in action!

Click the arrow thing to play…

Click to play

If you’re having problems with our Flash player, try this alternative site. This podcast series is now available on iTunes.

Apparently it was news because you can find a record of it in US embassy cables available on Wikileaks.

Never mind that Russel blogged about his US trip at the time with observations on: climate change legislation from DC, light rail from Denver and parking issues in San Francisco.

Russel’s trip was paid for by the US State Department, as part of a long-standing exchange program for New Zealand MPs and parliamentary staff.

Today’s article surmises that this contact –together with meetings between MPs and the embassy — has ‘blunted’ Green Party political positions. In fact, we are sometimes highly critical of US policy and sometimes in favour. For example:

We’re opposed to New Zealand’s support of the US-led war in Afghanistan.

We are in favour of green collar jobs initiatives from the US federal government.

We’re opposed to ‘free’ trade deals that favour US interests at the expense of New Zealanders.

We like it when the US president acknowledges an imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner and wish our PM would do the same.

We’re opposed to US corporate interests dictating legislation in NZ like Warner Brothers has.

… this list could go on at great length.

Newspapers aren’t always accurate. It was a sensational intro to the Stuff story today – Greens ‘seduced’ by US Govt – but not substantiated in anyway.

So if you want to know where we stand on any issues, come to our website, or call a Green MP.

You also don’t need Wikileaks to know that our  MPs meet with diplomats on occasions.

Among others, our foreign affairs spokesperson Kennedy Graham has met with officials from the US Embassy in Wellington.

As a former diplomat, Kennedy is well aware of the normal protocol for these meetings and the need to keep in contact with foreign government officials.

A lunch is not a policy change and a meeting is not a sign of anything other than that the Greens are a mature political party that meets from time to time with foreign embassies.

Rather than being judged on a sensationalised account of a US officials views in a Wikileaks cable,  we’d prefer to be judged on our actions.

We are pragmatic enough to know that we can’t simply ignore the US and , but principled enough to not be bought off when we meet with them.

The debate is not new. It has taken years for disability activists to work with the airlines to ensure access onto all kinds of planes. Clearly Jetstar haven’t developed a coherent policy about respecting people using wheelchairs, or this would not have happened.

The two television presenters were from Attitude, a programme about disability issues, and were rightly appalled at their treatment.

Jetstar say they are too short staffed to help people using wheelchairs. I wonder if they have ever engaged with customers who use wheelchairs about their needs? They have made some big assumptions that everyone needs a carer or companion and cannot ensure they get what they need by way of assistance if they travel as an independent person.

You do have wonder about the attitudes behind this debacle and the institutionalisation of those attitudes into collective discrimination. I doubt whether Jetstar have read the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the NZ Disability Strategy, but someone in their office might like to check these policies out. Otherwise they won’t just get bad press, they will get a consumer boycott.

This position was predictable, but less well known is her stance on education. Julia is the leader who imposed the Australian version of National Standards on Australian schools against the wishes of the teachers’ unions.

On a school visit, John Key admitted to Julia Gillard that we’re having a few problems with our “trial” of National Standards. If only it was a trial! In fact, it’s been rolled out to all schools, but he was right to admit that it’s not going well – many of our teachers and principals have rejected the standards outright.

The Australian education system is not the model we should follow in the race to educational inequity. Their record on public education is tainted by privatisation and underfunding. The Finnish education system is far more successful and innovative and is based on rewarding teachers and uplifting the status of public education. While there are some key differences between New Zealand and Finland – like the fact that there’s very little immigration in Finland – we could learn a lot from the Finnish system. However, I doubt the National Government is interested in anything that challenges its present orthodoxy.

The National Standards are in trouble because they were not a response to a key need identified by students, parents, teachers or academics. They were part of a new Government wanting to deliver on a particular election commitment. By ACT’s standards they are limited response to the call for vouchers and total privatisation in education. But it’s far easier to slowly weaken the public sector and set up the steps towards league tables and performance pay than announce your passion for the private system.

Of course, the signals have been clear since Budget 2009, which granted an extra $35 million to private schools. The present fondness for Cambridge exams over NCEA, and moves towards public private partnerships in schools are more evidence of this trend.

Last year National Standards were the major debacle in education, and the pitched battle over them created the sense of a Government that would not listen to teachers. Now with the resignation of the Ministry of Education’s senior official working on National Standards the cracks are widening. Will the Government acknowledge the need for a review of the mess, or will they plough on further to in the educational race to nowhere?

Greens’ vigilance on Gillard merits praise – John Armstrong

The Greens have got some unwarranted stick for blocking Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard from addressing Parliament while it is officially in session. They were right to do so.

Their intervention has produced a compromise which most people will struggle to see as much different from what John Key had originally proposed. That saves face for him.

The compromise is significant, however, in the huge symbolic difference between what will happen tomorrow and what Key had hoped for.

The Australian Premier will be speaking to a meeting of MPs which coincidentally is being held in the parliamentary chamber outside sitting hours with the permission of the Speaker. The meeting will not become part of the official record, normal rules will not apply and the meeting will carry no special status.

The Greens’ objection to Key’s plan was made clear to MPs during closed-door meetings some months ago. Had it been ignored, there was a strong possibility they would have refused leave for Gillard to speak – only one MP’s refusal is required to halt proceedings. That would have been humiliating for her and acutely embarrassing for Key.

So what, after all, was wrong with the original plan? The Greens had two reasons for blocking Gillard.

The first follows the British constitutional line that the floor of the House remain sacrosanct and only the people’s elected representatives should tread it. This flows from English history; that MPs should not be threatened or unduly influenced by “strangers” – such as the King’s soldiers.

The second reason is that giving Gillard the full honours would have set a worrying and dangerous precedent. As Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says, no Government could avoid the Chinese President officially addressing Parliament if there was such a precedent.

The Chinese would take refusal as a massive diplomatic snub. But going ahead would provoke a huge uproar if, in Norman’s words, “the No 1 enemy of democracy” was allowed to lecture a chamber filled with democratically elected MPs.

What message would that send? Key may yet have reason to thank the Greens for their vigilance.

I’ve said before what a terrible idea this is – overseas research suggests that no matter how you cut the PPP cake, the public ends up funding the projects while the private companies cream profit off the top. And there are plenty of horror stories about mismanagement of PPP education contracts overseas.

Now Radio NZ has unearthed the Government’s business case for PPPs with an official information request. It shows that it would cost $6m to set up and develop a framework for PPPs, but only save about $800,000 over 30 years. At that rate, we’d break even in the year 4300!

There are considerable risks involved, like the fact that private companies could end up deciding how school buildings are used outside of school hours, and the fact that the Ministry of Education doesn’t have the capacity to actually run or administer these PPPs.

Meanwhile we could have invested that money in early childhood health and education, for an exponential return.

Unfortunately, this Government doesn’t take any notice of trivial things like whether there’s a positive return on its investments. We know this because they’re spending $6b on motorways that will have a negative return. PPPs in schools is another example of an ideological policy they’re pursuing for its own sake, without regard for its actual impact.

Every child deserves a great education – that’s why we need a fair, well-resourced public education system. PPPs take us in the opposite direction, and will widen the educational gaps between the kids who have the most and the kids who need the most even further.

The verbal apology that was given notwithstanding, this incident is very disturbing. As a former girl who formerly wore very short skirts because I thought I looked cool, I would be grateful if young women were not subjected to moralistic abuse about their appearance. Uniform policing is an almighty waste of time; if you want to incite rebellion, attack young people about their clothing identity.

Speaking of high school injustices, check out this story about two young Melbourne women who were refused the right to go to their school ball because they were same-sex partners. Hasn’t the school heard of human rights? One of their dads has lodged a complaint with the Australian Equal Opportunity Commission.

But my pick of of the week has to be this young hero from Timaru. William Struthers won the Lions Club Young Speechmaker of the Year competition, and will get to go to the USA and Canada. His speech was about “women and why they should stay in the kitchen” because children need a loving and caring mother at home to raise them.

Thanks William Struthers for your profound analysis of women and what’s best for children. I am sure the girls in your class were thrilled to know their job is cooking and staying at home with the kids. Of course children need loving and caring parents at home with them but it’s not a gender specific role. Have fun being a young expert making speeches about women and being rewarded by the Lions.

Lastly, I found out today via facebook that the Gender and Women’s Studies Department at Victoria University is under threat (again). We have until tomorrow lunchtime to write something in support of this vital centre of analysis. Otherwise the stereotyping and the discrimination will not stop!

Send submissions in support to lilian.loftus@vuw.ac.nz

The opposition to National Standards is mounting: first teachers spoke out against them, then 38,000 New Zealanders signed a petition expressing concern about them, then the Auckland Primary Principals Association advised its members to stop attending training sessions for the standards because they were “irreconcilably flawed”, then the New Zealand Principals Federation launched a public campaign against the standards. Now Boards of Trustees are getting in on the act.

How much more will it take for John Key’s Government to listen to the message they are getting loud and clear – trial National Standards, not our kids?

What’s especially great about this morning’s news is that it lays to rest the propaganda being spread around that opposition to the standards is somehow limited to teachers, and motivated by self-interest.

In fact, it’s the interest of pupils that’s motivating teachers, parents, principals, and boards. Boards of Trustees have nothing personally to gain from opposing the introduction of the standards; in fact, they’ve been threatened by Education Minister Anne Tolley with “statutory interventions” (read sacking), but, as Jane Forrest, chair of Island Bay School Board of Trustees says, boards are taking a stand “because it was the right thing for the children”:

As representatives of our parent communities, we are joining our principals and teachers to say that national standards are fundamentally flawed, confusing and unworkable and we have no confidence in them.

Is the Minister really prepared to sack hundreds of school Boards of Trustees? The legal criteria for sacking school Boards require far more than that Boards defy an edict of an authoritarian Minister. They require that the Minister:

has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk to the operation of the school, or to the welfare or educational performance of its students.

Many of the boycotting schools will be able to demonstrate on the evidence of the reliable, trusted, standardised assessment tools they have been using for many years that they are performing well, and that the Minister has no reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk to the educational performance of their students.

That leaves Ministerial sackings of Boards vulnerable to judicial review in the High Court – potentially hundreds of judicial reviews!

Is that the path this Government really wants to head down? Surely it is time for John Key to tell his Minister of Education to take a step back and listen to the valid concerns of parents, teachers, principals and now Boards of Trustees.

Update I’m at meetings in Auckland today, but my fellow Green MP Keith Locke went down to meet representatives when they presented their opposition to Parliament; here’s a pic.

I’ve had a couple of classics myself this week. The first came from Attorney-General Christopher Finalyson. I asked for “all documentation considered by Cabinet in making the decision to decline compensation and apologies to the eight women who participated in the Forum of Complainants of Police Misconduct.”

I got the paper considered by Cabinet alright, but the entire section about financial redress – presumably fairly central to Cabinet’s decision to decline compensation – was blanked out. And we’re not just talking a paragraph, we’re talking pages and pages:

And then this morning I arrived to these pearls in my inbox. I’ve sent separate requests to both Environment Minister Nick Smith and to his officials at the Ministry of the Environment looking for documents about the Land and Water Forum, now that the forum’s reported. Seems like the right hand and the left hand need to get together for a little chat:

From Nick Smith

Please note that the request for “… copies of any papers or advice provided by your officials to the Land and Water Forum” has been transferred to the Ministry for the Environment for consideration, as it more closely aligns with the responsibilities of the Ministry for the Environment.

From the Ministry

Please note that the request for “…copies of any advice provided by your agency to your Minister about the Land and Water Forum, including, but not limited to advice on how the Forums activities and/or report might impact on the work of your agency” has been transferred to the office of Hon Dr Nick Smith for consideration, as it more closely aligns with his responsibilities as the Minister for the Environment.

Fun times in OIA land! Have a good weekend everyone.

Still, it’s disappointing that only the seven games on TVNZ will be captioned, out of the 48 fixtures in the entire tournament.

In his answer to the House yesterday, the Minister seemed to imply that TVNZ was the only broadcaster in New Zealand capable of live captioning, but I find this hard to believe from a technical point of view – aside from cost and political will, is there really a technological barrier?

Maori TV are broadcasting all 48 matches free to air, 16 live, and 32 delayed. Maori TV is also a state-owned broadcaster, and is simultaneously screening every match on a second channel with commentary in Te Reo Maori. If this is possible, then surely the Government could require captioning for the deaf community?

It’s now widely accepted that ensuring accessibility is an important part of hosting an international sporting event. At the recent Football World Cup in South Africa, post-match reports in International Sign Language were available for download from the FIFA website for every match. There’s really no excuse for an inaccessible Rugby World Cup next year: in addition to the 200,000 New Zealanders who could miss out, there’s also an estimated 70 million deaf people around the world to take into account!

Catherine asked whether the Minister would broaden the sports captioning project beyond the Rugby World Cup, or remind private broadcasters of their responsibilities to make their programming accessible under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. After all, we’re pretty far behind the international eight-ball on this one – the US has had live captioning of all televised sports matches since 1982.

Sadly, he had no response, and worse, staged a nasty and unwarranted little attack on the Greens using a bizarre question from fellow National MP Melissa Lee. Not a good look, and it backfired when referee Speaker Lockwood Smith, quite rightly, ruled it out of order.

Red card!

However, as I blogged a couple of weeks ago, female victims of “police misconduct” like Louise have been told they will not be compensated.

This week they also witnessed the edifying sight of former senior sergeant Dave Archibald’s promotion to a senior management role at the Police College despite his compromising involvement with the Brad Shipton case (he was caught accessing the police computer to pass on information that might help with Shipton’s defence). This nightmare seems to have no end for these women.

This latest evidence of the police force not taking this issue to heart is deeply disturbing for all women. It highlights that a culture change is still incomplete. It reinforces our feelings of vulnerability about those who are supposed to protect our rights. With outrageously bad domestic violence statistics in this country the last thing we need is a police force which promotes men connected with pack rape cases by policemen.

Earlier this year I attended the Women’s Refuge Annual Appeal launch, and what struck me most was the depressing need to endlessly repeat the message. Why is male violence endemic across so many cultures and families including from the rich, middle class and the poor? Why did the Minister of Justice tell me that protection orders are free when to make one stick you have to be eligible for legal aid or pay a lawyer? Why is violence by men against women now called “family violence”? Of course there is violence from women too, towards both men and children, but it’s not as culturally endemic.

On the positive side it is great that Turanga Nui a Kiwa Women’s Refuge is supporting a safehouse for men in Gisborne, which provides a space for men who have been removed from the home because of violence. They also need somewhere to go where they will be supported to change. I strongly support this initiative, so long as resources still go to protecting women and children and the police culture actually has changed.

The change will come when all men challenge the abusers to step up and “old Pat” the patriarchy finally clicks to the concept that a fair and peaceful society is better for everyone!

Not only is the image of Mr Burns rafting the Hurunui River strangely similar to many of those from Russel’s Dirty Rivers Rafting Tour…

…but the language is suspiciously familiar as well. ‘Quality of Life’ is an old Green Party slogan from years ago. On the back of his leaflet Mr Burns has this to say:

‘Clean and green’ is the basis of our economic livelihood – both for what we produce and our huge tourism industry.

Now where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right, at Russel’s speech to the Green Party AGM in June.

We say clean and green is the basis of our economic success. No environment, no economy. Clean and green: If we keep it real, we’ll all be better off.

Funny, I know it was in Christchurch, but I don’t think I saw Brendon Burns there. He must have read it online.

Here’s something else Russel said in that speech which Mr Burns seems to have conveniently ignored:

When Labour was in office the export economy was driven by massive expansion in dairy and tourism. Both sectors are built on clean and green, but they’re heading for a terrible collision. 

Labour took advantage of clean and green as tourism boomed, but put up no fight to protect our rivers and lakes while those waterways were being overwhelmed by dairy effluent. 

Labour invested in clean green branding PR but did not invest in keeping it real.

It’s nice to see that Brendon Burns now agrees that clean water is our birthright, that our brand is the basis of our economy, and that our precious wild places, like the Hurunui River, are under threat.

But his party had nine years in Government and not only did they do nothing about it, they actually facilitated the destruction by supporting irrigation schemes like the Hurunui Water Project. They sat on their hands while our rivers and aquifers were drained and polluted, and attacked the Greens when we spoke out about it.

So excuse my cynicism but actions really do speak louder than words. It’s a little hard to listen to the party that caused the water disaster telling us about the passion for clean water they have suddenly acquired now that they’re in opposition.

I’ll never be able to write satire like Danyl and Scott. But someone in the Green Party has enormous talent and can write satire.  Whoever it was who submitted this satirical piece to the Sunday Star-Times, and convinced the editorial staff that it was actually written by the Mayor of Whanganui – well done!

Dear Lord, has New Zealand got rocks in its collective head? This can be the only sane conclusion after the government’s gratuitous backdown last week on granting prospecting licences on what is known as “Schedule 4″ land.

Apparently Schedule 4 land is really pretty. Mostly inaccessible, but really pretty. Lots of ferns and fantails and stuff. Even snails. But it’s more than pretty, it’s magic.

It must be, for it has the unique ability to turn normally rational commentators and politicians into gibbering fools. So much so that, last week, one increasingly tabloid paper stamped the words “Saved!” across photos of the various sites.

Whoever you are, Micael, you are the ultimate satirist – taking the piss out of your alter ego, and putting the final nail in the coffin of those who want to destroy our natural heritage forever for 30 pieces of silver.

Go Micael Lhaws – the Green Party’s very own Secret Agent Man:

Children are gifted in so many different ways, and many need professional support like that offered by gifted and talented programmes throughout our state schools.

I first learned about gifted and talented programmes when I was on the Rural Education Activities Programme (REAP) Board in Te Tairawhiti. The definition of “gifted and talented” includes a wide range of skills and a diverse understanding of gifts. These programmes offered children who might have other learning difficulties the very real chance to shine and to develop a specific talent.

The evidence shows that schools involved with these programmes really benefited from increased professional development support. The Government seems to think that gifted and talented programmes in state schools can be replaced with a small number of scholarships for children from low income families to attend private schools. This Aspire scholarship programme contradicts and undermines the important work that has been going on in our state schools. If anything symbolises the ideological direction of the National Party it is this cutting of state funds for gifted young people and replacing them with a charity package for a few children deemed “suitable” for the private education pathway.

National Standards are also problematic for children way above the standards as much as for those who cannot reach them. giftEdnz are correctly drawing our attention to the inequities which beset their once growing programme in public schools and the unhelpful effects of National Standards on the children whose well being they are set up to foster. I can only agree wholeheartedly.

A quick history:

National policy statements are tools that can be developed under the Resource Management Act to guide local and regional councils to make decisions when local concerns conflict with issues of national significance.

A draft NPS on fresh water was started under the Labour Government, but the draft produced was waffly, ineffective, unclear, and wouldn’t have done anything much to protect our clean up our waterways.

That draft was referred to a Board of Inquiry headed by Judge David Shepperd who reviewed it, heard public submissions, and made suggestions to improve it. These suggestions amount to a substantial re-write and the new draft is strong, clear, and ambitious about setting targets and timeframes for actually improving water quality and stemming the tide of environmental destruction.

This draft was provided to Environment Minister Nick Smith back in January, but he has clearly put it in the “too hard” basket, and kicked it to touch for the Land and Water Forum to consider. That group is due to report back in July (and reaching consensus will be no mean feat).

In the meantime, our rivers are getting dirtier and dirtier, and this potentially helpful tool is languishing. It’s great to see it getting a public airing. This issue was also featured on Nine to Noon this morning, including Russel, Nick Smith, and Federated Farmers’ dairy chairperson Lachlan McKenzie.

And what did McKenzie have to say about it? I’ve got to hand it to him, he didn’t beat around the bush:

“We don’t need that one. That one has rules in it.”

Perish the thought!