CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Will she rule out implementing Treasury’s advice to increase class sizes in schools?

I was expecting a similar rejection to those we have grown used to from John Key in response to some of the wackier far right suggestions that come out of Treasury. Instead, I got this:

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) : Tēnā koe. No, because Treasury’s independent observation was actually, quote, that “Student achievement can be raised by improving the quality of teaching, … Increasing student/teacher ratios, and consolidation of the school network, can free up funding that could be used to support initiatives to enhance the quality of teaching, …” (full transcript here).

The Minister went on to cite Professor John Hattie, whose research published in his book Visible Learnings suggests class size has only a small effect on student achievement, and that teaching quality is a far more significant factor.

This is research cherry-picking of the worst sort by the Minister.  Hattie’s findings on this issue are not unchallenged.  A team of academic educationalists led by Emeritus Professor Ivan Snook and Professor John O’Neill have expressed concern at the validity of Hattie’s findings on class size.

Research conducted by Michael Boozer and Tim Maloney, ironically for Treasury itself, based on the Christchurch Health and Development Study finds statistically and economically significant positive effects of children being assigned to persistently smaller classes on both childhood test score growth as well as on early adult outcomes such as completed education and unemployment experiences.

It is also highly ironic that Minister Parata now purports to rely on Professor Hattie to justify increasing class sizes, while her predecessor Anne Tolley rammed through the Government’s National Standards programme despite Hattie’s deep concerns about its implementation and his suggestion that it could set back education 50 years.

I fear the Government’s real agenda in considering increasing class sizes is about cutting costs rather than quality of education and that Hattie’s research is being misused by the Minister in an attempt to give the appearance of evidential credibility.

Tēnā koutou katoa, Toi te kupu. Toi te mana. Toi te whēnua. Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Raukawa, mē –tē hapū o Ngāti Haū-mia. Kiā ora koūtoū.

 E ngā iwi,- e ngā mana, – e ngā whānau o Kāpiti.  He mihi nui tēnei ki a koutou katoa. Tīhei Maūriora!

I would like first to acknowledge Ngāti Toa, Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Raukawa and our local hapū Ngāti Haumia. It is stunning today to look out at Kāpiti Island where the Treaty was signed by Te Ati Awa – ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Ngāti Raukawa I thank you for signing te Tiriti o  Waitangi and granting me a place to stand in this country. I also acknowledge that your reciprocal rights and autonomy as secured by the Te Tiriti have not been adequately protected and at times actively undermined.

I would also like to give my thanks to Kapiti –District Council and in particular Mayor Jenny Rowan, today’s programme looks like a result of a wonderful partnership and deep knowledge of our communities. Finally I would like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Kris Fafoi, it is nice to share the stage with him without it being about votes.

Waitangi Day has always been a bitter sweet holiday to my mind. On one hand it’s a day to remember all that has been lost and all the threats that still continue. This week in the media we have heard the National government is looking to undermine Treaty relationships by selling off State Assets without adequate consultation and in the process remove the requirement to honour the treaty when considering our resources. And more recently we’ve heard the budget and staffing levels for Te Puni Kokiri will be dramatically slashed. Te Puni Kokiri is the primary voice for Māori into the work of Government. It is the essential working house for the government Treaty partnership.

We also see it here in this precious place of exceptional beauty the current threat of an expressway carving through the whenua and taking more precious, protected and fought for land.

Yet this day Waitangi day also reminds me of the potential for reconciliation shared understanding and partnership that is inherent in te Tiriti. 

It is our founding document, which set the framework for Māori and pākehā to live together peaceably in the same country, Aotearoa/ New Zealand. It is unique in the world, the only bi-lingual British treaty and the only treaty iwi signed with a foreign nation.

The Green Party is committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the living constitutional document of Aotearoa. We believe changes to our constitution should only happen with agreement of both treaty partners and we support restitution for historical and contemporary breaches.

Waitangi has become a symbol of nationhood. Over the last 171 years New Zealand different parts of New Zealand have committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and I would like to acknowledge all the councils and community groups and individuals as well as iwi, hapū and whānau who have embarked seriously on a path of considering what the treaty offers them and what the implications are for our lives and who have committed to working towards that goal.

Having travelled quite a lot the benefits of using the treaty as a guide are evident to me – it protects us from the possibility of seeing Māori talked about in the past tense in museums, it gives Maori a place to stand,  it guarantees the world distinct iwi cultures and all the stories and knowledge and culture held by each, it guarantees the uniqueness all the regions of this country, and gives tau iwi or tangata tiriti a valid claim to be here with integrity, it can also teach us the skills of partnership and communication.

My wish for today is that everyone leaves with a kernel of hope, trust, or inspiration for making te Tiriti a truly living document that could bring justice and honour to all our lives.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa

I had high hopes for a Green Member’s Bill to be drawn. The Greens had 14 Member’s Bills in the ballot, out of a total of 40, so the odds were pretty good to get at least one.  In the context of the proposed SOE partial privatisations and the Overseas Investment Office decision on the Crafar Farms sale, I would have really loved Russel Norman’s Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill to be drawn.

Sadly, that was not to be the case, and none of the 14 Green MPs’ Bills will see the light of day until at least the next ballot. The Bills that were drawn were new Labour MP David Clarke’s Holidays (Full recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill which was under Grant Robertson’s name before the election, and new National MP Simon O’Connor’s Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill.

Neither appear to be controversial from a Green perspective. David Clark’s Holidays Amendment Bill would “Mondayise”  Waitangi Day and Anzac Day for the purposes of the Holidays Act, meaning when the observation of those days falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the following Monday would become a public holiday. That is consistent with Green policy on work-life balance. Last year, because both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fell on  weekends, workers got two days less holiday than usual.

Simon O’Connor’s Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seems to have been a long time coming. The Law Commission recommended as long ago as 2001 that the Joint Family Homes Act 1964 be repealed, as almost all of its provisions were redundant, given subsequent legislation. I am curious as to why neither Labour or National led Governments have progressed that recommendation until now, when it finally surfaces not as a Government Bill, but as a Private Member’s Bill.

The Green Party caucus is yet to consider either of the Bills, and at there may be a few technical issues to be addressed at least with the Joint Family Homes Act repeal one.  But they both look sensible suggestions in principle, so I hope Parliament gets on to progress them promptly so other Member’s Bills get a chance to be debated.

Schools must protect this information from publication because once it is centralised, there is no guarantee it can be kept out of the media.

The Ministry of Education not only requires schools to report how pupils are progressing in relation to the standards, but it also requires “the numbers and proportions of students at, above, below or well below the standards, including by Māori and Pasifika”.

This might be useful information for school boards planning the following year but providing detailed data to the Ministry in the annual report is a different story. We see a real risk of individual students being identified and schools being inappropriately ranked.

The Minister calls this “transparency” but league tables of student achievement across the country will be damaging to many students and their schools. There are major privacy issues for small rural schools and for ethnicity-related data.

Almost 1000, or about 45 percent, of New Zealand’s primary and area schools have less than 150 children. Another 567 schools — another 25 percent — have only 150-300 students.

Many of the children at these schools are at risk of having their personal level of achievement exposed to the public through simply deduction.

Furthermore, National Standards are not the best measures to help students progress at their own rate.

Publishing results of this flawed and confused system of narrow measures will unfairly rank schools. This ranking of the public school system would lead to odious comparisons and pressure on teachers to teach a narrow curriculum to make their school look good on the league tables.

Considering schools already have a range of tools to measure achievement, the Minister of Education’s enthusiasm for this form of accountability is misguided and fails to recognise how it’s failed to improve educational outcomes where implemented in other countries.

League tables are for sports teams not children’s learning.

Tech Liberty co-founder David Zanetti has blogged that the first few notices issued in New Zealand under the new law do not appear to comply with the legislation and regulations.

Zanetti noted a number of problems with the notices posted to the 3strikes forum such as the description of the type of work alleged to have been infringed, date and time alleged offence occurred and the type of file sharing application used.

It’s concerning that the notices also make the threat of internet suspension despite a select committee ‘compromise’ leaving this up to the Minister of Commerce to decide to enact (he hasn’t yet) oh, and in face of the United Nations asserting that suspension is a breach of human rights.

Orcon spokesperson Quentin Reade told Fairfax NZ News it was “seeking legal clarification on the matter”, and would look at changing the infringement notices they send out if necessary.

This complex and confusing law has so many unanswered questions like these that won’t be resolved till they hit the Copyright Tribunal and possibly even higher courts leaving everyone in limbo.

This law is an absolute mess and won’t even solve the problem. As research from Germany shows, increasing availability of digital content demonstrates one can combat internet piracy without huge costs, a new bureaucracy, and infringing basic rights.

Most of my life has lots of women in it. I think I might just be a woman’s woman. I have many good women friends, many of my campaign team were women and most of the places I’ve worked have had lots of women. It’s something I don’t usually even think about except for those rare occasions when someone voices a distrust or dislike of working with women and it seems so strange to me.

So I’m probably particularly sensitised to gender because I have walked into a world which is so different from what I’m used to. I feel like I’ve entered a boys club.

People have already been writing about the drop in the number of women in parliament. We are now less than 33%. Thirty three percent is a magic figure. It’s the figure of normalisation if not equality. When women are below this proportion there is a subconscious message of not fitting, of not being the norm and a pressure to take on the behaviours of the dominant group. The National Party has only 25% women with only three in their top twenty and the Labour front bench has only two women. The speaker, deputy speaker and assistants are men. Most of the party whips/musterers are men. Yesterday in the House there were sexist comments, endless personal barracking, rugby analogies and only one speech from a woman (Metiria) in four hours of speeches.

The House looks and sounds like a boys club to me.

And it’s not just parliament.

My first visit to the koru club for an early morning flight was like walking into a room of suited men. There were other women there but the majority were men. Then the flight felt like some kind of boring geometrical wrapping paper of black, blue and white suits.

For our retreat we stayed at a hotel in central Auckland and there was one stage where we were having coffee at the end of the day and I looked up to find us surrounded by older white men in suits.

Maybe it’s not so strange that I’m sensitised to gender after all

What it must feel like to Māori or Pacifica women or trans people I can’t even imagine. I do know that I am exceptionally grateful to enter Parliament as part of a Green caucus that has a strong contingent of women (8) and an understanding of gender role stereotyping and the danger of binaries. At least this part of my world feels familiar and positive. I hope our numbers and culture will enable us to infuse some colour and create a voice and space for difference within this weird club.

A transcript is here for those who cannot access the video.

Rumours about such a significant proposal should not be swirling around in the media without a confirmation or denial from the Ministry. School boards and parents should be formally notified if this change is really on the table.

Prior to the election the National Party gave no signal that the Ministry would be taking over this role. It wasn’t mentioned in their policy.

The Government’s rhetoric around education is extremely contradictory at the moment. One minute National says parents need more choice via charter schools and the next it’s taking away choice from communities by removing the power of boards of trustees to appoint their own principal.

Giving local communities a degree of control over their school was central to the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms. I haven’t seen any evidence that the hiring of principals is too difficult a task for schools. It is more likely that the Government wants to make principals answer directly to them rather than the kids and parents in their local community.

National seem to be making up policy which suits their mistrust of schools and helps to impose their unpopular policies. Principals have been a fantastic voice for children in the recent debate over national standards. They are experts who know what they are talking about. Silencing principals is Nationals way of shutting down that important debate.

The Government has no mandate to undermine boards of trustees powers and to continue to operate in a contradictory and hostile manner towards the education sector.

It is time for National so show principals, teachers, parents and children some respect, and listen to their important contribution of ideas that really would improve our education system.

As spokesperson for Human Rights and Co-spokesperson for Rainbow Issues I am very pleased to see this report.

In 2000 I was on the New Zealand delegation to Beijing +5 following up from the 4^th World Conference on Women. I joined the crossed nation lobby of individuals and NGOs working to protect the gains around sexual rights. In this group were lesbians from a range of countries. Many of them were still living undercover and many of them had survived quite extreme violence and were living in fear of discovery and attack. I felt slightly awestruck by their courage and also outraged by the injustice and I did wonder what further amazing things they could have achieved if they hadn’t had to live in such conditions.

At that time we were playing catch up against a very conservative Christian lobby that had managed to influence the pre meeting negotiations. We managed to hold the line and progress the rights for women but there was certainly no space to have lesbian written anywhere in the text. While at the previous U.N meeting on Women in Beijing in 1995 Hilary Clinton made a stir by declaring women’s rights to be human rights I am very pleased to finally see the United Nations in 2011 formally recognise LGBTI rights as Human Rights.

My hope is that this document will make a difference for those women I worked with and the millions of LGBTI people like them all around the world.

More specifically and close to home this can be a spur for action on implementing the recommendations of ‘How do we make it better? Mapping the Steps towards a More Supportive Coming Out Environment for Queer Youth in Aotearoa New Zealand” which provided a NZ response to the fact our Queer youth are three times more likely than their heterosexual peers to experience bullying and five times more likely to attempt suicide.

These documents usually only make a difference if we use them – and I hope this government will work with me (and Kevin) to make the changes necessary to ensure all members of the LGBTI communities, here and overseas, can realise our rights.

There are some great quotes from the column. I think this was the best.

The Greens are dangerous. They are more than a polite group of tree-huggers, slug-savers and water samplers but you rarely, if ever, hear of the more sinister planks of their policy, which are frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters.

The comments — which have now been turned off — are also quite good, with Mark S from Auckland noting

These policies are exactly the reason that I voted for the Greens, and am thrilled that they have the presence that they have in parliament.

Sadly, this is not the first time that Mr George has been caught copying others work.

A hashtag has sprouted up on Twitter #DangerousGreens and people are changing their display pictures on Facebook and Twitter to warn people about the inherent danger of associating with them.

I think Garth George is secretly a Dangerous Green. After all, he is just recycling when he copies other peoples work.

This is a new development that builds upon, and refines, the previous foreign affairs portfolio.  It focuses on the same reality, but from a different, updated, worldview.

From the mid-17^th to mid-20^th centuries, the nation-state emerged, waxed, and waned as the principal political unit in what theorists call the Westphalian age.

With the United Nations, however, the sovereign state has been joined by the individual as an entity under international law – initially through the universalisation of human rights, more recently through international criminal law. From Göring and Hess to Milosevic and Karadzic.

Also since the mid-20^th century, we have been confronting problems that are truly global in character and impact – weapons of mass destruction, ozone depletion and climate change.

And since the late 20^th century, we have acquired a global consciousness, through deep-space exploration and moon-shots of Earth, along with a planetary interconnectedness through the ITC revolution.

We are today in the post-Westphalian age – a fast and dynamic transformation towards a global society of some form.  Ours is a transitional age, in which the international community of states is now joined by a global community of peoples. The global civil society ranges alongside the global corporate sector, acting as the not-so-still voice of conscience in our changing world.

In this unfolding scenario, nations have become integrated in myriad ways into the global scene.  A country’s attitude towards the world and its actions are now less a matter of foreign policy – ‘us’ v. ‘them’; more a matter of ‘us’ as part of the broader ‘us’.

We are now an integral part of the global community.  What we do and say – our policies towards, not ‘the world’, but ‘the rest of the world of which we are a part’, is the subject of global affairs.

Within this new paradigm we do not seek to maximise a competitive national advantage to excess, indifferent to the consequences elsewhere.  We collaborate in identifying the global challenges before humanity. We agree on the global solutions, and then we agree on our legitimate national interests, and then we carry them out.

It is a matter of global responsibility. This is not moral handwringing – it is an imperative of collective survival. Our global responsibilities and our national interests become one and the same.

Thus, a country’s portfolio for dealing with the rest of the world is most appropriately described now, not as foreign policy, but as ‘global affairs’.

The Green Party will henceforth pursue this approach in the Parliament, in the country, and around the world.

The good news: the Greens achieved a record result, including our bonus 14th MP Mojo Mathers.

The bad news: official voter turnout was only 74.21%, the lowest in over 100 years.

This record low voter turnout strengthens my call for the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to focus its regular post-election inquiry into addressing declining voter turnout.

I think that one option to help increase citizen participation and voter turnout is to introduce online enrolling and voting. We need to modernise our enrolment processes and exploring online options to help encourage New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders, to participate in the civic process.

Last week, as a way to start exploring these ideas, we set up an informal online survey that asked people six simple questions about enrolment, voting, and civics education.

The response was overwhelming, with over 1,000 people taking part. The results gave us some interesting indications of the factors influencing voter turnout and showed strong support for exploring online options for enrolment and voting.

74% of respondents said they would have been more likely to enrol to vote if they could have done so online. Significantly, just looking at those who had not enrolled to vote, two thirds indicated they would have been more likely to enrol if there was an online option.

Figure 1 – Online Enrolment

Of those who hadn’t voted, 58% said they would have been more likely to if secure online voting was available.

As well as this support for online options, nearly 80% of respondents believed that civics education at secondary school would make it more likely for young New Zealanders to vote.

Figure 2 – Civics Education

I think that these results indicate that there are options to turn around this trend of declining voter turnout in New Zealand and that they need to be explored for the health of our democracy.

What do you think?

I haven’t seen any parents marching for the right to set up a Charter school or demanding more “freedom”. I have seen some of the overseas literature on the failure of the Charter model and it’s a sad and sorry tale about reinforcing inequality.

So ACT as in John Banks has persuaded the Government that Charter schools (a model of privatisation of the public good) will somehow make education work better for all. How this is supposed to happen via performance pay, cheery picking and lack of accountability is anybody’s guess. Undermining the public education system will not fix poverty and inequality but then not everybody really wants to. A low wage economy needs to keep some of its population unskilled and unemployed to keep those wages in their place.

If the Government really cared about education we might have discussed learning models at the Education and Science Select Committee. In the last three years we spent a tiny percentage of our time talking about learning let alone “reforms” like National Standards. We might have seen some mention from the Government of the Charter Schools option during the election campaign. However there was no public signal that privatisation of the public education system was going to be part of the new regime.

Without being melodramatic (or not very) I do find it an evil use of language. They are pushing the idea that low income communities would have more “choice” if the public system was competing with a privatised model of schooling funded from the public purse.

During the election campaign I launched our education policy at a primary school in Manurewa East which celebrates its cultural diversity and has wonderful support for its students. It was a happy place with music, colour, vegetable gardens and a passion for education.

Over the last two years I have been a regular visitor at a low-decile school in South Wellington which has just had a fantastic ERO report and has a very high standard of parental involvement. I could also wax lyrical about the Victory school community hub in Nelson and the incredible achievement record of Te Waiu o Ngati Porou kura in Ruatoria.  These are quality public schools and kura kaupapa. They are flexible and meet students needs without business rhetoric or models. Their secrets include dedicated teachers, community support and cultural respect

The Green Party is not saying the public system has no issues. Schools manifest our society with all its inequalities and challenges, but cannot of themselves fix the growing inequality. We know there are numerous issues that need work and resources. But we know what the word “public” means and what values and benefits it protects, and we are ashamed of what this Government is proposing to do.

As Cory Doctorow points out “It’s a rare victory for evidence-based policy in a world dominated by shrill assertions of lost jobs and revenue, backed by funny-number “statistics” from industry-commissioned researchers.”

It’s exactly the opposite approach from what New Zealand’s Government has adopted. Our Government didn’t study the problem, didn’t think about encouraging legal alternatives (The Commerce Minister didn’t even know what Netflix was!) and, after US lobbying, passed under urgency the punitive three-strikes ‘Skynet’ law.

Interestingly the report also questions the legality of three-strikes laws after the the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression declared such laws to be a breach of human rights.

The new NZ Government should have a read of the Swiss report, listen to the UN and look at terminating the Skynet law in favour of legal alternatives. As research from Germany shows, increasing availability of digital content shows that one can combat internet piracy without infringing basic rights.

This is why we at the Green Party take social media seriously. It’s an opportunity for us to make ourselves available to you and show that we’re real people caring about our country. This isn’t just about being hip; it’s about being good public representatives.

We’re not alone in thinking we do a pretty good job. This morning on TV ONE’s Breakfast, Matty McLean did a story about the Greens having the most Klout — social media impact. I’m proud to say I was ranked in top place, ahead of John Key and Phil Goff. Despite being a smaller party than National or Labour, we have three politicians in the top ten — Kevin Hague (tied for 4th) and Russel Norman (9).

But our high rankings don’t mean we’re doing everything right. Parliament can be a bit of an Ivory Tower at times, so to help us engage even better with the community, I’d love to hear from you about what you think we could do better. And it’d be good to also know what you think we are doing right.

If you’re not yet friends with us on Facebook or following us on Twitter, you’ll find links to all our MPs’ pages and accounts here. And here you’ll find our official Green Party Facebook page, which btw, has the most fans per capita for a political party in OECD English speaking countries.

But it’s not just about FB and Twitter. We’ve also launched various successful online campaigns including Hey Kiwi and Aroha NZ. To connect with people that usually wouldn’t realise MPs are interested in hearing from them, I’ve also done a few AMAs (ask me anything chat forums) on Reddit and Game Planet.

What matters more than what we do online, is that you get out and vote tomorrow. And, of course, Party Vote Green!

My new Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill seeks to protect people from being prosecuted for satirising copyrighted content; a protection available in Australia, the U.S. and many E.U. countries. Parody and satire are among the oldest forms of criticism and play an important role in making light and creating understanding of issues the public feel strongly about. They deserve to be protected in our legal system.

I agree with the Creative Freedom Foundation: “Considering NZ has just implemented a law providing Copyright holders with a system for enforcing their rights online, now would be a great time to balance this by protecting artists making transformative works ie remix, mashup, satire, parody, pastiche, and caricature. These creative methods have been around for centuries – wouldn’t it be great if NZ recognised them and protected them in it’s law?”

I’m keen to change the law because parodies like Telecon and Should-A (Smack As Part Of Good Parental Correction…).com, as well as political parodies like the Hitler Downfall remixes, have all been removed because of copyright infringement. My bill would give creators a legal leg to stand on and give them confidence to create.

I thought it was fitting to launch the internet-focused Bill via Reddit — a popular online community that discusses everything from pictures to politics — because people affected by the current law are more likely to be online. You can read the live chat here.

There is a lot of learning going on to find out the causes of the problems we face, and some of the solutions. The gross inequality between the top 1% and the other 99% is an overriding theme – as it is around the world – but the daily general assemblies and the workshops are picking up many other issues.

The mood is positive, with signs like “Awake with the dreamers” and “The beginning is nigh”. Others have a good turn of phrase. I liked “In oil we lust”. Drop down and see the folks sometime. Or check out their website at www.occupyauckland.org.

What I found was a rather more interesting (and also more demanding!) event, the brainchild of an enterprising group of AUT students who donated their time and skills to organising the morning as part of their communications degrees.

Posing as a ‘star’ for the morning, alongside Blair Strang, a real star,  I was invited to compete to see what distance I could clock up on an exercycle in blocks of three minutes.  I don’t find an MP’s lifestyle to be especially conducive to maintaining fitness, but  managed to produce at least some reasonable results, although Blair did manage to take the lead (by a modest margin ) in our final ‘contest‘.

The point of all the silliness and panting was to raise awareness of what Habitat does in the community, and of their plan to host a sponsored ‘Bike and Build’ cycle ride from  Auckland to Wellington next year, with proceeds to go toward completing a building project in Wellington.

So if you are keen to ride all or part of the way between our two largest North Island cities, for a good cause, keep an eye on the Habitat website for details.  You have plenty of time to get fit for it if you start soon!

While happily fronting a weekly slot on TVNZ’s Breakfast programme, and on Radio Sports, and a one hour special on Radio Live, he has refused virtually all requests for interviews on Radio New Zealand.

He has declined 174 requests for interviews on Morning Report and has been interviewed on Checkpoint only five times this year. He has also turned down a request to appear on an election debate on Radio New Zealand.

This begs the question, what is going on here? Does the Prime Minister have an aversion to public service radio and a bias in favour of commercial radio? Or is it just that he wants to avoid in-depth news interviews in favour of soft lifestyle interviews.

Certainly his government has shown unrestrained hostility to Radio New Zealand. It has frozen its budget indefinitely, and Radio New Zealand is limping along, with its funding contracting every year (thanks to inflation), having to sell off its grand pianos to survive.

On the other hand, the Government has treated commercial radio generously, and given a $45 million bail out to Mediaworks.

But the Prime Minister’s bias in favour of commercial radio, and against public service radio, raises other troubling questions of accountability. The fourth estate has an important role in holding governments to account. But if the Prime Minister turns down over a hundred requests for interviews from our public service radio station, which is listened to by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders every morning, how is the government to be held properly to account?

Being in Hamilton reminds me of how it felt to be a young man realising my difference for the first time. Although Hamilton is now actually a pretty cool place, I remember the fear, isolation and desperation of the mid-1970s. You may well have seen the video clip I shot for the “It Gets Better” project. But why can’t we make it better right now?

That’s the genesis for Murray’s report (or at least for my role in sponsoring it). As an adult gay man, my life is immeasurably better than the one I would have led in 1970s, as a result of the hard-won gains like Homosexual Law reform, legal protection from discrimination and civil unions. But the teenage gay boy growing up today is still surrounded by a family, friends, school, church and pretty well every other element of his environment that assumes he is heterosexual. What he is most aware of is his difference from his peers and from the expectations of others. And most likely his role models are that guy in Glee, Ellen de Generes and an occasional character on Shortland Street. Sure it’s better than it was for some, but it’s still much worse than it should be, leading to many negative health, educational and other social outcomes.

So Murray’s report sets out to write the agenda for making it better for those young people right now, rather than having to hang on in quiet desperation until their fabulous adult lives kick in. The specific issues raised include bullying, isolation, invisibility of queer people, a lack of knowledge amongst professionals who work with youth, inconsistency in how school support queer students, the struggle to embrace the diversity within the queer community, a lack of public awareness of queer issues, poor policies for transgender health provision, and growing complacency towards queer activism and rights. This is the agenda around which we want to unite the adult LGBT communities and the wider community in working to implement. These were the key actions:

Schools

• Develop policies that would ensure all schools create safe and empowering environments for queer students.
• Make sexuality and gender diversity education part of the core curriculum.
• Weave diversity awareness into all aspects of the curriculum.
• Make queer issues and diversity training a central part of teacher training and professional development.
• Ensure that teaching staff diversity, in terms of culture, gender and sexual identities, has administrative and institutional support.

Support Groups

• Promote the establishment of both community and school based support groups.
• Develop a national network where support groups can collaborate and support one another.
• Develop a national QSA network to promote the establishment of QSA groups throughout the country.
• Ensure collaboration between QSA and community based groups and networks.

Visibility

• Hold the media accountable for negative or narrow representations of queer people.
• Develop the capabilities of media spokespeople throughout our community.
• Develop a database of media spokespeople throughout the country.
• Engage with and educate journalist and reporters.
• Encourage celebratory events that raise the visibility of the queer community.
• Seek government support for a national visibility/public education campaign.
• Work alongside sporting and cultural institutions to encourage more out role models in different public domains.

Nurturing Internal Diversity

• Ensure queer events and spaces cater for all queer people, not just the hegemonic groups.
• Cross-Sectoral Professional Development:
• Make diversity training and queer issues a central part of the training and professional development of all professionals who work with youth – i.e.Counsellors, Nurses, Teachers, Social Workers.

Policy

• Establish a policy group or network dedicated to promoting policy initiatives that will empower queer youth and seek to have the queer youth perspective heard in any policy development.
• Work with schools and other institutions to see existing policy implemented or enforced.
• Develop policies that make it easier for transgender youth to navigate the health system and access the appropriate services.
• Specific research into the health needs of transgender youth and the implications of existing policies is needed.

Immediately prior to going to Hamilton for the Pride Festival I had a day in which two situations were raised with me, with requests for my help. Coincidentally both were of 17 year old young men who had come out to their parents and been thrown out of their homes. It was a sobering reminder of just how important Murray’s report may prove to be.