In the US there is increasing evidence that No Child Left Behind is a failure:

Over the years, the law became increasingly unpopular, itself blamed for many ills in schools. Teachers and parents complained it led to “teaching to the test”. Parents didn’t like the stigma of sending their kids to a school labeled a failure when requirements weren’t met. States, districts and schools said the law was too rigid and that they could do a better job coming up with strategies to turn around poor performance.

A common complaint was that the 2014 deadline was simply unrealistic.

As the deadline approaches, more schools are failing to meet requirements under the law, with nearly half not doing so last year, according to the Center on Education Policy.  Center officials said that’s because some states today have harder tests or have high numbers of immigrant and low-income children, but it’s also because the law requires states to raise the bar each year for how many children must pass.

The increasing dissatisfaction with No Child Left Behind came to a head last Thursday, when President Obama exempted 10 States from their compliance requirements.  Schools in those States will be free to assess students with methods other than test scores and will be able to factor in subjects beyond reading and mathematics.

There are another 29 States, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, also in the process of applying for exemptions.  I expect most of them will be granted, and that we are seeing the beginning of the end of the failed ideological experiment that is No Child Left Behind.

New Zealand’s new Education Minister, Hekia Parata, could do well to heed the lessons from the United States. The concerns that school principals, the NZ Educational Institute, Boards of Trustees and educational academics, as well as the Green Party, have been expressing about National Standards here are exactly the same concerns that have led to the discrediting, and now the impending demise, of No Child Left Behind in the US.

This is standard ‘finger in the air, eyes down, look to Washington for a lead’ foreign policy of this Nation’s Government. The claim to bipartisanship is a throw-back to FPP days (conscious or subliminal?) where Labour and National share most foreign-policy DNA.  But we live in an MMP Parliament now, for 15 years in fact, and the Green global affairs policy is different from the sclerotic thought processes of these two aging parties.

The emerging doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) is the symbol of the transition from the ‘international relations’ approach to the ‘global affairs’ approach to world events.  The latter requires the UN Charter, and the thinking of nation-states, to get up to speed with the 21^st century, ensuring that the aspirations of the peoples of the world are taken into account in diplomatic statecraft at the UN.

The R2P doctrine emerged in response to the frustrations over the twin crises of the mid-90s – in Rwanda where UN inaction (‘very numerous killings…’) resulted in genocide being committed; and in Kosovo where the West intervened militarily on controversial grounds.

With Kosovo, the West essentially over-interpreted a humanitarian resolution of the UN Security Council, and bombed the hell out of Serbia.  Russia and China claimed this was illegal, but their draft resolution was defeated by a majority in the Council.  An independent commission of inquiry subsequently concluded that the military operation was ‘legitimate if illegal’ – a phrase to set the hares running if ever there was one. Serbia then took NATO states to the World Court, but the Court found that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.  Brilliant!

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan then challenged the international community on how to respond to these nightmares.  An(other) independent commission produced the R2P doctrine.  It says that, while the responsibility to protect civilians lies with a national government in the first instance, if that government is unable or unwilling to meet its responsibility, then it falls to the international community as a secondary responsibility, including the right to intervene, if necessary, with force.

The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 complicated matters when a majority in the Security Council opposed the military operation yet the US, UK and Australia proceeded.  The fallout prompted (yet another) independent commission which made it clear that ‘responsibility to protect’ was legal and legitimate only if it had an explicit Security Council authorisation. I was involved as a consultant to that commission and followed matters closely in the UN that year.

Reflecting the commission’s work, the UN General Assembly effectively adopted the doctrine in 2005 when it declared that member states were prepared to “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis.” The UN would co-operate with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are “manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

This is the clearest sign, among many, of movement in sovereignty from the national to the global level for the protection of civilians.  But its effectiveness is stymied by the veto in the Security Council.

So long as the veto remains, effective UN reaction will be thwarted, whether it is Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, or Syria. Anywhere – not least Israel-Palestine.

The problems of the Security Council come from opposite ends:

-        Rwanda (’94) where the Security Council shied away from acknowledging genocide lest it trigger a binding obligation to act under the Genocide Convention – ‘sheer cowardice’;

-        Kosovo (’99) where the West over-interpreted a Security Council resolution (for delivery of humanitarian supplies) and bombed Serbia to the negotiating table – ‘legitimate if illegal’;

-        Iraq (’03) where the Council opposed (by majority, not through a veto) military intervention, but the Anglo-Americans invaded anyway, for regime change purposes, through a selective interpretation of previous (12-year-old) resolutions – ‘illegal and illegitimate’;

-        Libya (‘10) where the Council authorised military intervention to protect civilians, and the West interpreted this to justify regime change – ‘studied hypocrisy’.

So what to do with Syria, which is eerily close to the Libyan situation?

Russia and China vetoed the Syrian resolution (for a second time) because they oppose the Western knee-jerk over-interpretation of Council resolutions, plus covert arms supplies.  It is no use lambasting them alone for pursuing their national interests – every one of the permanent five does just that, despite their special obligations.  At least Russia is striving to facilitate a solution behind the scenes – offering Moscow as a venue for dialogue.  But that is dead in the water, so long as it does it alone without US engagement.

The top UN officials have, uncharacteristically, taken sides.  The Secretary-General expressed ‘great disappointment’ over the veto on behalf of all supporters of democracy: “It undermines the role of the UN and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people”.  The Human Rights Commissioner said that “the failure of the Security Council to agree on firm collective action appears to have fuelled the Syrian Government’s readiness to massacre its own people in an effort to crush dissent”.  The ICC may well be waiting, she added.  Remarkably strong language against what remains the government of a member state.

So the options, over the next month or so, are military, economic or diplomatic:

1. Military intervention in Syria (Libyan-style) with a Council resolution. Legal (today, unlike only 20 years ago) but politically inadvisable since many civilian deaths will result.
2. Military intervention in Syria by the West (Libyan-style) without a Council resolution. Illegal and politically inadvisable.
3. Bilateral military intervention by Turkey for ‘regional stability’ akin to the Tanzanian intervention of Uganda in 1979, justified on an updated version of R2P. Unacceptably dangerous for everybody since it invites escalation.
4. UN-authorised economic sanctions on Syria, akin to those applied to South Africa over apartheid. Blunt and effective only over the long-term, if at all.
5. Continued diplomatic negotiations with Syria for internal dialogue and political settlement, bilaterally (Russia, Iran, Turkey) or regionally (Arab League) or multilaterally (UN Secretary-General plus envoy).  Soft, but often the most effective (as in Yemen, where the UNSG and the sub-regional organization (GCC) brokered a transfer of power endorsed by the UN Security Council).

Until the UN can decide and act on the basis of a constitutional majority, with no veto or a circumsribed veto, the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine will remain controversial and undeveloped.

Until that time, it is better to remain confined to the route of peacemaking through UN diplomacy.  Diplomacy through the good offices of the UNSG, supported by the regional organization, will always be more effective and enduring than that advanced by any major power.

Just yesterday, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon “told journalists that the UN and the League of Arab States are considering sending a joint observer mission to Syria.”

New Zealand should call upon the UN Secretary-General to appoint an envoy, to work with the Arab League, host a venue (Aqaba? Doha?), form a high-level ‘friends of Syria’ advisory panel, and be prepared to personally engage – in Hammarskjöld-style.

Minister Brownlee’s irritation and impatience with the Christchurch Council creates the impression (deliberate or otherwise) that the Council is not competent, and that further Government intervention may be required.

While the City Council has come in for some deserved criticism its achievements post ‘quake are significant. It has delivered a forward looking plan for the central city in record time and it continues to competently provide a wide range of services  that people expect from their councils from libraries to wastewater (albeit at a scale reduced by the quakes).

The pressure being applied to Christchurch City Council relates to the Government’s concerns over how the council will meet the $1 billion share for the cost of rebuilding imposed on it by the Government.

One way of raising this revenue – and a way no doubt favoured by many in the current Government – is for the council to sell off assets.

Brownlee has openly stated that the Council must have a better plan than “putting up rates or borrowing a lot more money.”

While the Government denies it is pressuring the council to sell assets – “discussions” between Treasury and CERA officials and senior Council management suggest otherwise.  Then there’s the fear that Government could “do an ECan” and replace elected City councillors with Government appointed commissioners free to begin a process of asset sales.

Red Bus Ltd, Lyttelton Port Company, Orion and Christchurch airport are all assets owned by Canterbury citizens through their council. In the interests of Christchurch’s long term recovery, these strategic and revenue generating assets must not be sold.

The best prospect for Christchurch’s recovery must be to allow council to continue to prepare and consult the public on its draft annual plan and budget.  The Government should be looking at other ways of raising revenue.

An earthquake levy, of the type proposed by the Green Party, would raise $1 billion each year to contribute significantly to the earthquake bill.  An earthquake levy would assist central Government with the task of funding earthquake recovery.

Instead of looking at ways that all New Zealanders can help with the Christchurch rebuild the Government is pushing Christchurch residents – many who have just lost their homes – into a further financial crisis.

Feeling that perhaps I am one of those people he criticises as ‘people who in the one breath chant “more jobs, more jobs” and then in the next breath say “but don’t do that, or that, or that”, I thought I would ask Mr Joyce a few questions about why he and the National Government are saying ‘we won’t’ to a prosperous and sustainable Aotearoa.

Mr Joyce criticises those who say ‘you can’t explore for that there’. In actual fact, those of us who are deeply concerned about the Government’s risky ‘drill it, mine it’ agenda for our country are not saying ‘you can’t’ without providing alternatives that will both keep our valuable clean green image intact, and provide a more  sustainable economic path for Aotearoa.

As the Greens have been pointing out for a while, if we were to secure just 1 per cent of the global renewable energy market in the next five years, we’d create a $5.8 billion industry with 60,000 more green jobs. Short term risky exploration ventures will not create a long term stable economy for New Zealand. And with the Government boasting in its recent briefing to incoming Minister of Economic Development that we have one of the lowest royalty rates in the world, how can we take their claims of the economic benefits to New Zealand seriously?

So Mr Joyce, why won’t you and your Government commit to a modern and sustainably prosperous economic plan for Aotearoa, when the opportunities to do so are so viable?

Mr Joyce criticises those who say ‘you can’t build that there’. I wonder if he is referring to the vast expansion of new motorways planned which he himself presided over while Transport Minister? In the recent briefing to the incoming Minister of Transport, data revealed a transport budget blowout of $ 1 billion is expected as oil prices remain high. Is this smart economic planning? As Julie Anne Genter, fellow Green party MP and transport spokesperson said in a blog last week ‘As oil prices rise, people turn to buses, trains, walking and cycling, but this Government is planning to blow the budget on uneconomic motorways’

So Mr Joyce, why won’t you and your Government invest in sustainable transport options for Aotearoa giving Kiwis real choices which will be better for our economy and contribute to healthier lifestyles and a cleaner environment?

As it’s a large part of the Minister’s economic plan, he is also no doubt referring to those of us who criticise asset sales as the ‘you can’ts’. As my colleague Russel Norman revealed on Wednesday, the Government is planning to sell off assets which are earning four times more than the cost of capital tied up in them, some of which, according to the Prime Minister himself, have returned 18.5% shareholder profit over the last five years. Why won’t the Government implement smart economic decisions like a temporary earthquake levy for Christchurch, or a capital gains tax which would unleash capital to be invested in innovative productive Kiwi businesses?

So I ask My Joyce, rather than focusing on the ‘can’ts’ why won’t you and your Government focus on real solutions like renewable energy, green-tech, or smart transport that would deliver for Kiwis.

On the face of it, the statistics indicate a steady decrease in unemployment – and no doubt John Key’s government will be pitching it in this light.  The headline will be that unemployment has fallen to a 21-month low of 6.3 per cent. But let’s look at what’s really been happening.

In the December 2011 quarter, 7,000 fewer people were unemployed … but only 3,000 more people were employed. How can that be?  Two things have happened. Yes, the unemployment rate has fallen , but let’s look at why.

Firstly, the numbers of unemployed people have decreased – but it’s been on the back of a sharp rise in the number of people picking up part-time work. In the last quarter, the number of people in full-time employment actually decreased by 0.8 per cent – while part time employment increased by 15,000 (3.0 per cent). So, there hasn’t been an increase in people getting the kind of work that pays the bills. There’s been an increase in the number of people doing poorly paid jobs.

There’s a gender aspect to this. The number of men in full-time employment fell 1.6 percent this quarter, while the number of men in part-time employment rose 7.1 percent and the number of underemployed men rose by 6.8 percent. In contrast, the number of women in both full-time and part-time employment rose this quarter, up 0.4 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Statistically, it is likely due to the gender pay gap the jobs women are picking up pay less. So what we are seeing is undoubtedly a shift away from higher paid, full-time men’s jobs towards more part time male employment and towards more full and part time women’s jobs, which are more poorly paid.

Regional variations are important too. The Bay of Plenty and Northland had the worst unemployment rate at 8.3 per cent, while in Wellington unemployment rose from 6 to 7.2 per cent, an effect no doubt of ongoing public  sector cuts and their downstream impacts on the local economy.

The second important thing to think about is that the total number of people participating in the workforce has declined; this makes the unemployment rate look better too. In the December quarter participation hit a 12-month low of 68.2 per cent, with the number of people not in the labour force increasing by 11,000 to 1.107 million.  The largest increase was in the 20-24 age group – this rose from 12.4 percent to 13.1 percent. Meanwhile unemployment among 15- to 19-year-olds rose from 23.4 to 24.2 per cent.

With the total number of jobless now at 261,300, we have grave cause for concern.  In the New Zealand Herald this week Simon Collins has been running an excellent series on inequality – today’s feature was on housing. Lack of affordable housing is reaching a crisis point in Auckland and indeed many other parts of New Zealand. There is a direct and pernicious (and completely obvious) link between New Zealand’s low wage economy, the rise in preventable diseases like school sores and rheumatic fever and poor housing/overcrowding. This doesn’t just affect just the unemployed poor – it’s the working poor too. It is becoming a cliché to say that two out of five children living in poverty come from families where one or both parents are in paid work.

We desperately need the Government to make an investment in New Zealand families and communities. It could begin, as the Green Party and many others have campaigned for, by implementing an immediate increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour and by announcing a proactive job creation programme in Christchurch and elsewhere – to provide meaningful, decently paid work for those who need it.

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.

There weren’t as many people this year. Some were feisty but unlike the Rugby Sevens, there were not multiple arrests. No one was drunk or rude to no purpose, and there was a level of debate on many political issues which I am yet to hear in Parliament.

For me the most inspiring part of Waitangi this year was a roopu reporting back to the people about their work on constitutional transformation. This roopu consists of some of the most dedicated, experienced and wise leaders of the tino rangatiratanga movement in Aotearoa.

The first speaker Huirangi Waikerepuru, a kaumatua from Taranaki, is a beloved taonga for iwi katoa. He was also the wood work teacher at my high school and we had no idea then of his mana and knowledge. He spoke about the deeper foundations of Maori tikanga and kawa that’s essential for any discussion of Te Tiriti-based transformation.

Professor Makere Mutu spoke about Te Hakaputanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi to set the scene for the constitutional discussion. She brought alive the wisdom of her tipuna in asserting their requirements for the relationships with the manuhiri.

Moana Jackson spoke with his classical eloquence, precision and power about the meaning of lore/law and constitutions and the plan to extend the kawa of the marae to a kawa for the nation through flaxroots korero on questions about “how should we be governed?”. The challenge for Pakeha and tauiwi katoa is what grassroots parallel-process are we capable of running

Mereana Pitman made us laugh but also brought home to us the jewels and gems that come from asking people in the hapu and marae what kind of governance arrangements they believe would benefit themselves and also Aotearoa.

Annette Sykes, whose analysis is of legendary sharpness, brought the focus onto the need to properly resource the process of dialogue with flaxroots people who don’t get to stay in flash hotels.

Veronica Tawhai who is a younger academic/activist inspired me when she spoke about the work on a Waitangi claim about loss of political decision making which was rejected as an issue the Waitangi Tribunal could usefully address.

I was inspired by the oil and mining protestors, the work of Mike Smith and the calm resolute aura of Tame Iti who faces down the court in the next two weeks for supposed “criminal gang” activity.

I was left with a challenge – how will Tangata Te Tiriti respond? How will we contribute to these issues in right relationship with tangata whenua? Te Tiriti belongs to all of us and as Kingi Taurua said, “not to celebrate or to commemorate but to honour”.

The armed forces continue to attack Homs in the name of suppressing the Free Syria Army but, in reality, killing citizens through widespread collateral, if not targeted, damage.  The UN Security Council is rendered ineffectual, again, through use of the veto.  The Arab League’s plan for a controlled and peaceful transition to democracy is stalled.

Crises have a habit of being resolved through diplomatic creativity (rare), blowing up into full-scale violence (occasional) or dragging on to some unsatisfactory semi-conclusion (usual). Which way Syria goes will depend on the political consistency and diplomatic skill of the major powers – not the greatest reassurance available to a concerned global public.

Yesterday, in the first Question Time of the new Parliament, I asked the Foreign Minister about the Government’s response.  New Zealand, he said, had condemned the bombardment and planned to draw this to the attention of the Syrian chargé in Canberra.  And it was deeply disappointed over the veto.

Would it endorse the precise plan produced by the Arab League?  The Minister did not think it was helpful ‘to get into the detail’. But it was imperative for the Security Council to ‘show some leadership’ and resolve the differences between Russia and China, on the one hand, and the others.

Did the Minister see any parallel between the Russian-Chinese veto in the Syrian case and the persistent US vetoes on the Israeli-Palestine issue?  The Minister thought “that range is rather wider than I would care to go”.  He reiterated the need for leadership in the Council.

As a courtesy, we chose not to raise the matter of leadership in NZ foreign policy.  The range might be a touch too wide and the detail too excruciating.

But on the substance, one thing is clear. For the UN Security Council to show leadership, it needs two fundamental reforms.  The permanent membership needs to include regional leaders such as India and Brazil, and whomever Africa decides.  And the veto needs to be dropped or, at the least, circumscribed.

It is a question of national sovereignty in the global age.  The major powers insist their vital national interests require the veto and that this was recognised back in 1945 as the quid pro quo to creating the UN.

But it is exactly two-thirds of a century since then, and national sovereignty is increasingly shared in the common interest.  And even under the Charter, the five permanent members are required to act in the Security Council in the interests of the entire membership, not their own.  This is more than a fiduciary or contractual obligation, it is constitutional.

But the veto provides undue temptation to pursue the national interest.  And the major powers succumb.  During the Cold War, the USSR had the record.  In the post-Cold War world, it is the US.  Where Russia and China exercise the veto over Syria, the US does it over Israel-Palestine – 13 times in the past 16 years.

It is unlikely the major powers will accept a constitutional change to surrender the veto, since formal change to the Charter is politically elusive.  But it is entirely feasible to develop a convention, without charter change, for the veto to be circumscribed – through, among options, a double veto or a 48-hour second resolution rule.

In the post-Cold War world, two serious attempts have been made to reform the UN – in the early 1990s and in 2004-5 following the tensions of the Iraq invasion.  Neither succeeded.  But it is time for a third exploration.

It was pleasing that the Minister, in answer to my final question, agreed that New Zealand needed to ‘take a role’ in the emerging debate on Security Council reform.  He expects the Government to become ‘more active’ in the issue, and the question of the veto was an inherent part of that.

I shall be pursuing this with the Minister in this 50^th Parliament, and in the Foreign Affairs select committee.  There is no more important issue.

The Fund’s stake in Hong Kong-based property development company Sun Hung Kai is the tenth biggest investment the Fund’s made in an international company, according to their December performance report.

Is China the next big property bubble on the brink of collapse?

The Chinese Government has spent much of its massive export revenues on building brand new cities. Trouble is, not many Chinese people can afford the prices of new apartments and some of the cities have become ghost cities — their emptiness visible on Google Earth.

If you find the satellite images interesting, this SBS Dateline report (Australian TV) takes you there on the ground and leaves you wondering how all this building activity could possibly end well.

Russel

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

50c an hour is not going to help the people that need it most – people like the Bradley family who were profiled in the Herald this week, where dad is having to work three jobs just to feed the family. And even so, the parents are having to go without food some days just to feed the kids.

What we need in this country is a living wage – one which pays enough for families to be able to feed and clothe their children, pay the rent or mortgage, pay the power, phone and doctor’s bills, and not slide into debt when something unexpected happens.

The Government will tell you that increasing the minimum wage to a decent level will cost jobs. Indeed, last year John Key claimed that increasing it to $15 an hour would cost 6000 jobs. This has not been shown to be true – in fact the NZ Council of Trade Unions has done an extensive literature review which indicates there is no clear evidence, either internationally or in New Zealand, of a causal relationship between moderate increases in the minimum wage and employment or unemployment levels. But, despite the evidence not supporting John Key’s claim, Minister Wilkinson is still banging on about the fictional 6000 job losses.

What we do know is that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are experiencing poverty and hardship on a daily basis – and on this basis 50c simply doesn’t cut it.

The Green Party wants to see an increase in the minimum wage, first to $15 an hour and eventually to two thirds of the average wage. This will help both reduce inequality and poverty and reduce the reliance of many low-income New Zealanders on taxpayer-funded financial support.

We need to lift wages across the board. We need a Government that will actually care about families struggling to get by in New Zealand.

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.

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.

Before final sign off and maybe as a way to keep the pressure on, John announced that Catherine Isaac (number 3 on the ACT list and rumoured to be a possible new leader of the Party) had been appointed as Chair of the Charter Schools pilot. This announcement was premature but still looks likely as John Key also seems to think Ms Isaac is qualified for the task.

From their point of view, what could be more appropriate for the job than a free market business person with no qualifications except being on a Board of Trustees? What do Charter Schools have to do with knowledge of education if they are in fact a business opportunity? No one knows for sure which model of Charter School is being implemented but we do know that the ACT Party education agenda is simple – privatisation, preferably with a voucher system.

The overseas experience of Charter Schools is very conflicted. Where these schools have cherry-picked children from low socioeconomic areas and poured resources into their education, those schools get good or comparable results with public schools. However, this does little to lift the educational opportunities for the majority of children in the state system where the issues of inequality and poverty are endemic. The Green Party thinks all children deserve the best via a state system that is innovative, consistent and equitable and that special character schools are also provided for already.

The other ghastly news on education this week includes the Minister of Education Hekia Parata’s announcement that league tables of National Standards results will be compiled by the Ministry of Education.

This is even worse than National’s former Education Minister Anne Tolley saying that league tables of Nationals Standards cannot be kept from the media.  Minister Parata seems to think that publicising results which schools say are neither national nor standard will benefit parents in their choices of schools. She is proposing the Australian model which compares schools within the same decile.  There is real concern from educationalists about this because the diversity within deciles is still very wide. Crude comparisons don’t help anyone.

On top of all this, Treasury is recommending in a briefing paper that class sizes could be increased to cut costs. The argument from some is that class size doesn’t matter. I can only speak as a person who has taught in Polytechnics and communities and in my experience the difference between a class of 35 and 20 is astronomical if you are teaching with real student participation.

Everyone agrees the teacher/ student relationship is critical but Treasury say that teachers can manage more relationships if they’re good enough. I say get real. It works in lecture rooms but what about schools?

Lastly there are threats of more small school closures even as they pilot charter schools. What will happen next week to education? Anything is possible.

It’s a laudable goal to reduce our expensive dependence on foreign oil but it would be a lot smarter to invest in alternatives like better public transport, renewable electricity and sustainable alternative fuels.

Even if New Zealand is the ‘Texas of the South’, it is unlikely to benefit New Zealand. New Zealand sells itself cheaply with the forth lowest royalty rates in the world and gives subsidies and tax breaks to foreign oil companies. So there will be hardly any royalties, hardly any taxes and hardly any jobs for Kiwis, and the profits will flow offshore. We won’t pay any less for petrol at the pump if we produced more than we consumed because we are still unlikely to process it here or pay less than the international market price.

We know Kiwis face 100% of the environmental risks for only 5% of the value of the oil. The only way to massively ramp up oil production is to drill in hostile, risky environments in deep-water like the Great South Basin or the Raukumara Basin, more than 1000m down. This brings its own risks as we saw only too graphically in the Gulf of Mexico. Our clean, green brand is too valuable to put at risk from a catastrophic oil spill.

The Rena demonstrated we do not have the capacity to adequately deal with even a moderate spill let alone a deep-sea well blow-out. The tax-payer has already forked-out $25 million in costs associated with the Rena and our oil drilling insurance rules don’t even demand oil drilling companies have insurance to cover the full costs of a spill.

At a time when globally, renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels and other governments, businesses and militaries are planning to reduce their dependence on oil, our Government isn’t even planning to start planning. But they are planning to increase it by borrowing billions to pour on uneconomic motorways.

If oil is the problem, more of the same isn’t the answer. As the International Energy Agency’s Chief Economist Fatih Birol says, ‘we should leave oil before oil leaves us’.

Fair Work Australia workplace tribunal has just made an historic equal pay decision for aged care workers. They will all now be getting big pay rises.

Aged care workers in New Zealand are a classic example of undervaluing women’s work. These workers, the vast majority of whom are women, hold the dignity, health and lives of older New Zealanders in their hands and yet they are on just over minimum wage.

With these conditions and wages it is currently difficult to recruit workers and many of our aged care workers are from overseas. According to the Thornton Aged Residential Care Service Review,2010, retention is a major issue and “Employer strategies include overseas recruitment and training packages.” This is consistent with Fujisawa and Colombo 2009, who review a broader range of strategies in the long term care sector across the OECD to adapt supply to growing demand.

Now that Australia has raised their wages significantly we may have an even bigger problem retaining and recruiting women to do this work. In New Zealand most aged care workers are on around $25,500pa and in Australia they will soon be earning up to $83,984 . If New Zealand won’t value this important work and its contribution to our society why should these women feel bound to stay here?

This situation poses a real risk for New Zealand as our society ages. As Julia Gillard said “paying a decent wage will stimulate the economy and make society more resilient. It’s time to stop the undervaluing and underfunding of women’s work.”

As the New Zealand population ages, traditional women’s work will become increasingly important and as the world population ages skilled workers will become increasingly sought after. If the National Government doesn’t care about equality and justice maybe they should think about their own old age.

The Green Party believes this is a priority for government. Sadly though the briefing to the incoming Minister released yesterday identified equal pay as a problem but did not suggest any solutions.

The Greens have been calling for the Equal Pay Act in New Zealand to be brought up to date with current employment practices.

…I’m not concerned about the very poor; we have a safety net there.

Over on Denise Roche’s minimum wage thread here at frogblog, commenter dbuckley recalls for us just what that “safety net” actually is:

Yeah… but… you have that wonderful safety net system that looks after people who fail to achieve the American Dream and fall on hard times.

I just can’t quite remember its name….

ah yes…

it’s coming…

Yes!

Jail.

I guess it’s pretty much the same here, and will become more so as the children of the Mother Of All Budgets reach adulthood and become increasingly engaged with the Corrections Department.

The Council has the opportunity, along with the obligation, to lead in the international community’s call for respect for human rights and political freedoms in this latest country to enjoy the warmth of the Arab Spring.

Manoeuvring delicately within the grey area of state sovereignty, popular will and universal rights is one tough challenge. Especially in the Arab world where the political culture is significantly different from the prevailing Western norms that inform Security Council strategy.

Western support for popular uprisings in that region faces the inevitable road-block. The West finds it easier to be clear-eyed over Tunisia and Egypt, Yemen and Libya, and even Syria, than it does over Palestine.

Deriving from the Libyan experience, the rhetoric surrounding Syria is embedded with the principle of non-intervention. The League of Arab States has made it clear its draft resolution would avoid foreign military intervention.

Echoing the aspirations of the League, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for the Syrian President to ‘heed the people’s call’, and urged the Council to ‘start a credible political solution’. This would be an internally-driven peaceful political transition, compelled by international consensus in the form of economic pressure “so that the Syrian regime might realise that it is imperative to meet the demands of its people”, as the Chair of the Arab Ministerial Committee on Syria explained to the Security Council.

The power of the UN lies in its ability to act collectively. A UN mandate, albeit often complicated and politically subjective, holds global legitimacy because it derives from a collective decision-making and consensus-building process. Nothing else, including US engagement in the Palestine issue and Russian engagement in Syria, does.

In approaching the Security Council, the League strengthens the power of this collective legitimacy, as opposed to the singular power of a large nation such as the US.  Hence, the UN Security Council has the opportunity to take the global lead on Syria.

Amnesty International calls on Russia not to veto the draft resolution. Neither should it.  But the Security Council will never attain the objectivity required for full global legitimacy until it applies an even-handed approach to the comparable forms of repression in the region. Syria and Palestine stand as a twin litmus-test of transparency and objectivity.  Ramming through a resolution on Syria and continuing with US vetoes on Palestine will not do, from now on.