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.

It was a great and powerful speech that clearly defined the Green vision for Aotearoa. Russel also attacked National and Labour for bludging off our grandchildren and pulling the ladder of opportunity out of reach for those who need it the most.

Watch the speech below or click here to read.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), the US Department of Energy, and Lloyd’s of London are all warning of an imminent oil supply crunch and price spike. Russel is concerned that all these institutions have made it very clear the world is facing an oil price shock in a few short years and this will have a very significant impact on the world economy.

Says he, “No matter how many new oil wells are drilled, New Zealand’s economy will be hit hard by the coming price shocks. It’s time to face the future rather than stick our heads in the sand in the hope that this problem will all go away”.

Colmar Brunton research commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has shown that 72% of New Zealanders think the Government should prepare now for future oil price rises by investing in alternative fuels and public transport.

It seems Kiwis understand that this is an opportunity to achieve economic resilience in the face of a changing energy landscape. Those countries that adapt by transitioning to a low carbon economy are the ones that will prosper.

Yet National and ACT, supposedly the parties of sound economic management, are so tied to their 20th century approach that they can’t even hear what the rest of the world is saying when it comes to oil. Adding insult to injury, Gerry Brownlee intends to gut the NZ Energy Strategy, a sad response to the changing world energy picture, lacking any kind of a plan to deal with this risk to our energy security.

At least the public see through it. So a reminder to please ensure John and Gerry get the message by making a submission on the draft Energy Strategy by 5pm this Thursday, 2 September.  See our submission guide for help.

He starts with a criticism of Hone, he attacks the Maori Party, he promotes unjust treaty settlements and he defends the discriminatory foreshore legislation. And all delivered to a predominately Pakeha audience. How could whanau and iwi and those on the progressive left respond in any other way but with severe criticism? What exactly was the message here, who was he really talking to and about what?

I personally struggle as to what it is I am most disappointed about in his speech.

Lets take the foreshore. Goff said, in defending legislation considered by many whanau, hapu and Pakeha to be indefensible:

But for all the criticism I have heard, most people accept that the current foreshore and seabed rules aren’t broken and they’re a good foundation for moving forward. They believe it’s good legislation for all New Zealanders….It’s hard to see why the country should be put through all the grief just to put a new brand on law that’s working…. If the foreshore and seabed issue is left for the courts to resolve, we could be tied up in knots for years. The government has a choice between sticking with the status quo, which guarantees access but allows for agreements around customary rights, and the alternative of never ending court battles….National wants to reopen the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Labour asks: What isn’t working? Will reopening court action help or would it see wounds fester?

Labour has never understood the impact of their utter rejection of Maori over the Foreshore. They have never understood the seriousness of slamming the door in the face of whanau and hapü over the issue. Because that was who really paid the price – the small coastal iwi and hapü who would never have the resources to fight or to lobby or negotiate.

Goff claims in his speech that the legislation is working because Ngati Porou did a deal with Labour under it, but what about Aitanga a Hauiti, who lost their treaty rights to their coastal rohe? Labour’s foreshore legislation picked the “large Maori corporates” as the winners and shut out the smaller iwi. Coincidentally, Goff also levelled this same criticism at National and the Maori Party in his speech:

Instead, it’s just done a deal to advantage some large Maori corporates, which other forestry companies do not get from the government, which will give the Maori corporates an estimated $1.75 billion. Let’s be clear. This deal will not benefit Maori as a whole.

I agree that the ETS deal won’t benefit whanau, but it’s completely inconsistent to then say the foreshore legislation was good because big iwi like Ngati Porou could benefit. Pot calling the kettle black.

The disloyalty by Labour to these smaller iwi was severe. It takes real leadership to say you got it wrong. Cullen’s, somewhat conditional back track on the foreshore issue in April this year certainly did not go that far, but it opened the door just a crack, showing they at least recognised a failure of judgement even as they tried to justify it.

Cullen’s position gave Labour some wiggle room over future foreshore changes. It is highly unlikely that much of the Labour scheme will change even if the Nats repeal the existing law. Labour could claim both some success of their scheme with the voters they wooed with the original act, and win some Maori support through a dignified acknowledgement that change was necessary.

At best, I could say that maybe Goff was trying to do that with this speech on the foreshore as there is some recognition of the Cullen position in it:

Back in 2004, Labour’s process on dealing with the issue, in a different environment, could have been better…

But when read alongside the other criticisms it still just comes across as anti whanau, intended or not.

Labour will be frustrated that National will get credit for foreshore reform despite their racist and despicable 2005 anti Maori campaign. But that’s one of the costs of losing an election, hell, we’re all pissed at that.

But this frustration mustn’t distort the bigger picture here: the progressive left must rebuild links with the diverse communities who are suffering under this government and that includes whanau and hapu. Goff, for all his possible intentions to build a sense of ‘nationhood’ simply delivered to National a great wedge with which to divide us.

Does he stand by his statement that “water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring” of local government; and if so, how does he reconcile it with Cabinet’s decision to allow “ownership” of water infrastructure by the private sector?

Yesterday, Rodney Hide announced Cabinet’s decisions on local government reform. Hidden among them were changes that will effectively privatise local government water services, by allowing PPPs and repealing public ownership protection provisions in the Local Government Act.

The following legislative changes will be made:

• extend the 15-year limit on water services contracts and joint arrangements with the private sector to 35 years, which makes these arrangements more workable
• allow water services arrangements to include BOOT schemes by allowing ownership of infrastructure by the private sector during the contract period
• repeal the provisions that require councils entering into a contract or joint arrangement with the private sector to retain control over the management of water services (control over pricing and policy to be retained by councils).

Yet, back in May, the beleagured Bill English, as Acting Prime Minister, categorically said “water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring”. Here’s the relevant Hansard from the May question exchange:

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Will he guarantee that sections 130(3) and 136(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which prohibit the privatisation of council water services, will remain in force as long as he is Prime Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Privatisation of council water services is not being considered by the Government, in Auckland or anywhere else. I cannot give a guarantee on the sections of the Act, because they do not do exactly what the member describes. Officials will be considering those sections, along with many other legislative provisions, in the light of whether they assist or inhibit investment in infrastructure.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister therefore confirm that his promise not to privatise publicly owned assets during this term of Parliament is going to be broken, or is it going to be kept—that is, will he ensure, in respect of the restructuring of Auckland local governance, that water assets cannot be privatised as a result of that restructuring?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm the Government’s view that those assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister give the same commitment that he has given in relation to New Zealand Superannuation, that if there are any changes—any privatisation of water assets—he will resign as Prime Minister; that is, a complete promise from the Prime Minister that water assets in Auckland will not be privatised while he is Prime Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only confirm what I said in answer to an earlier question. Water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring. In the end, as with every other local body in New Zealand, the decisions about local body assets are made by the elected representatives of the people who live in that local body area.

Dr Russel Norman: How can the Prime Minister say that it is up to Aucklanders to decide whether the privatisation of water services will proceed, when it would be possible for such privatisation to proceed only if his Government were to change the law around the Local Government Act, removing the protection that currently exists in the Act to stop the privatisation of water services; that is, it is not up to just the people of Auckland; it is up to this Parliament and his Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not exactly sure what the member means by the privatisation of water services, or of the way the section of the Act to which he is referring protects it. Some councils already have water services delivered under concession. The section he is referring to simply puts a limit on the length of the concession at 15 years. So it is not saying that councils should not have concessions; it is just saying that they cannot be longer than 15 years. If that is the way the law is, then Auckland local bodies will have to work with it unless it changes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is difficult to raise this, and I certainly do not want to accuse the Minister in any way of misleading the House, but I think he may have misread the Act in terms of what those—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Whether a Minister’s answer is to the member’s satisfaction is not a point of order. She can ask further supplementary questions to elucidate that matter, but she cannot use the point of order process in that way.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister implement the royal commission’s recommendations for block tariffs for water, which guarantee that even large families have enough truly cheap water to live on, while making sure that those who waste water—with very large swimming pools, for example—pay for the privilege; that is, we guarantee water to those who need it, while having a steep price tariff for those who waste it, so there is an incentive to use water wisely?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not the Government’s intention to become involved with the pricing of water. That will be carried out by whatever entity is in charge of water in Auckland, and that entity will be accountable to the elected representatives of the Auckland people.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister received any advice as to whether section 133 of the Local Government Act requires councils to retain their water services and not sell them, and any advice as to whether section 136(2) limits the matters that can be contracted out, to purely operational engineering matters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has not received any detailed advice on that matter. The relevant sections do not prevent the use of concession agreements. They simply set out some of the limitations on what those agreements might be.

Join us at 2pm as Russel and the Green Team fight to keep our public drinking water clean, affordable, and ours.

A National Government created Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act in 1997 to protect National Parks from mining.

The Government wants to mine in Kahurangi National Park, a Park created by National while Nick Smith was Conservation Minister and proudly opened in 1996 by Jim Bolger.

So, why does Nick Smith support this move?

Here is Nick’s 1997 speech [not online] when the Schedule was created:

Thursday, November 20, 1997

Hon. NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): In rising to support the third reading of the Bill, I draw the House’s attention to the significance of the final stages of the passage of this legislation. …

This Bill at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: “These are no-go areas.”

I draw the House’s attention this afternoon to just how significant that range of areas is. First, we have all those areas that are national parks: areas such as the Abel Tasman National Park, and the national parks of Arthur’s Pass, Egmont, Fiordland, Kahurangi, Mount Aspiring, Mount Cook, Nelson Lakes, Paparoa, Tongariro, Te Urewera, Westland, and Whanganui. Those areas total over 3 million hectares of land. This legislation says to the mining industries that those areas set aside as national parks are not appropriate areas for mining.

If one picks up the National Parks Act and sees the quite prohibitive range of activities that is permitted to go on in those areas, one realises that it is certainly consistent with those activities to say that mining should not occur in those areas. In effect, this legislation we are about to pass sets and strengthens that National Parks Act, which dates back to 1980.

This legislation goes further than just national parks. Areas around New Zealand have been set aside as nature reserves, scientific reserves, wilderness areas, sanctuaries, and wildlife sanctuaries. There are areas that have been set aside as Ramsar sites, in terms of the convention on wetlands and highly migratory birds, as well as those areas in the Coromandel that the Alliance member Jeanette Fitzsimons has mentioned. This Bill sets out quite clearly very significant areas of conservation estate in which mining is not allowed. That is something that this House should welcome.

In 1990 National’s manifesto committed it to going down this route. …. the commitment that was made in 1990 to ban mining in national parks was a significant one. … the Bill does provide a mechanism, which has been improved in the Committee stage, whereby additional areas can be added to those that will be provided for in the mining ban.

I also wish to make comment about my New Zealand First colleagues and their attitude to this Bill. Members will note that the coalition agreement specifically mentions the banning of mining in national parks. Again, I would draw to the attention of this House that the Government is honouring a further clause of the coalition agreement by advancing this legislation.

Environmental groups—the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Maruia Society, and groups in the Coromandel—have pushed for this legislation for a very long time. I welcome its progress. I want to make reference to the cooperative way in which members on both sides of the House have worked to progress this legislation. ….

This is landmark legislation for the conservation movement in New Zealand. I welcome the Bill’s progress and, as Minister of Conservation, look forward to not having to consider mining applications in those areas where nature should be able to rule the roost.

What’s changed, Nick?

So National has now openly revealed its plans to privatise ACC – clearly, the Government has been softening the public up for this for a while.

First we saw the deliberate distortion of ACC finances, then we saw National’s handpicked chair talking up ridiculous levy increases and most recently ACC papers were leaked that talked about high excess charges and big cuts to compensation.

Classic National strategy – manufacture a crisis, get someone to say something that is even worse than its proposals and then bring out the cutbacks and pretend they are reasonable.

That said, I think National are going to find it difficult selling the gutting and privatising ACC as reasonable – I hope so anyway!

So what’s wrong with privatising ACC – basically it will drive up costs and cut coverage.

How do we know this? Because NZ compares favourably with overseas models. [PDF]

There is also the academic research showing privatisation will make ACC worse.

As I have previously blogged, even some employers have gone public with their concerns that privatisation will drive up costs and didn’t work when they tried it in the 90s.

ACC is the tip of the iceberg for National’s privatisation agenda – keep your eye out for any more manufactured “crises” that need vicious cutbacks and privatisation to be fixed.

“Any political party with an eye to New Zealand’s future success must pursue policies that protect and promote our environmental assets.”

“National will provide Kiwis with good signals about the cars that are the best for the environment. We will do this by ensuring our emission and noise standards for new vehicles keep up with international standards and practices and by introducing more sophisticated emissions and noise testing for existing vehicles. If Kiwis have a highly polluting or excessively noisy car, we think they should know about it and have an incentive to do something about it”

“National proudly shares many of your values: like you, we want to protect our unique native species. We want our children and grandchildren to be able to swim in our rivers and lakes. We believe in sound environmental science. We are committed to high environmental standards”

“Government policy decisions over the next few years will have consequences that keep reverberating not just for the next 10 or 20 years but for the next 50 and beyond. So it’s vital we get them right.”

and lastly:

“We should always measure a government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record”

Thanks to Forest and Bird for pulling these together.

So how are those nice words stacking up? Well, so far National has:

• Announced ETS Review to find out if climate change is real
• Repealed Biofuel Bill, including sustainability standard
• Scrapped “Love NZ” public place recycling
• Scrapped $1bn insulation fund
• Introduced the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act, which, amongst other things, prohibits councils from making general rules about trimming or felling trees.
• Hiked the fee for commencing appeal or inquiry proceedings in the Environment Court from $55 to $500, so community groups can’t afford to file against environmentally damaging projects.
• Cut funding to Enviroschools
• Cut funding to the Department of Conservation, including natural heritage management
• Cut funding to the Ministry for the Environment
• Cut funding for fisheries sustainability, biosecurity
• Refused to stop the import of palm kernel, despite overwhelming evidence and public outcry
• Opposed (and killed) Marine Animals Bill
• Introduced terrible ETS Bill
• Budget for environmental education: cancelled.
• Renewable electricity preference: cancelled.
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy: cancelled
• Fuel economy standards for cars entering New Zealand: cancelled
• Minimum energy performance standards for appliances: seriously delayed
• DoC’s budget: cut by $13.5m/year
• Plans to mine in National Parks

I’m seeing a wee disconnect here. Are you?

Leading Bluegreen and the National Party’s long-time environment spokesperson, now the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, Dr Nick Smith, is proud of his environmental commitment. His blog before the election:

New Zealand’s environment is at the core of our national identity and our way of life. For most Kiwis it is considered a birthright to be able to get out and enjoy our great outdoors.  This unique ability to camp, fish, tramp, hunt, and picnic is part of what defines us as New Zealanders, and is enjoyed by young and old alike.

The reality is, though, that our natural environment, which we are all so proud of, is not being well managed.

Now, many are pointing finger and him and his Government – and noting the lack of influence of the Bluegreens – about the management of our natural environment; on climate change, enviroschools, RMA reform, funding, and now attempts to steal protected conservation land for mining.

Nick has been surprisingly silent on the decision of Ministers Brownlee and Groser to do a stock-take of our premiere conservation land for its mining potential. Was he consulted? We know he was given a copy of Brownlee’s speech prior, but did he read it? Does he support it?

The view from Mt Owen

What’s up, Nick?

Nick proudly displays a large landscape photo of Kahurangi National Park’s Mt Owen above his office reception desk.

Will he let his Government mine it for the gold in the granite quartz seams?

He proudly displays Forest and Bird mags in his office reception as conservation-cred.

Has he listened their perspective on the Government’s decision to assess National Parks and Nature Reserves for mining?

And his reception area coffee-table book is LISTEN to the Heartbeat of the Earth, a “collection of inspirational images of the natural environment …each reminding us what a fragile and special place we live in.”

Will listening to the rumble of mining machines and photos of scarred mountains be his Government’s contribution?

Before the election the National Environment Spokesperson Nick Smith said “The burning of coal is the dirtiest form of energy and the single largest global source of greenhouse gases.”

Why then does his Government want to find more, and from under our most high value conservation land?

What’s up, Nick?

Credit: Photo sent in by Glenn Murdoch

Gerry was so inspired he decided to tell a mining conference that he wanted to open up our best conservation land for mining.

Reasonable access to the mineral estate in Crown-owned land, particularly conservation land, is a key issue. … Some of the areas within Schedule 4 [which includes National Parks] are known to host significant [mining] potential…

Very inspirational indeed Gerry – it’s up there with sexy coal!

From No Right Turn:

So, having set itself an utterly pathetic climate change target of 10% – 20%, and derided all talk of going for 40%, guess what target the New Zealand government is demanding from everyone else?

That’s right – 30 – 40 percent:

Overnight, New Zealand told delegates from 190 countries in Bonn that the Government’s emissions reduction target of 10-20% below 1990 levels is dependent on developed countries as a whole cutting their emissions to 30-40% below 1990 levels. “My jaw hit the floor,” said Geoff Keey, who was in the meeting at the time. “New Zealand has effectively told the rest of the developed world that if they work really hard to reduce their emissions by up to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, we’ll do half of that.

“There’s been so much rhetoric from the Government about New Zealand doing its “fair share” – they’re now calling for other countries to pick up our slack.”

This is just pure hypocrisy.

And as the icing on the cake:

New Zealand also admitted that the 2020 target will be achieved mostly by carbon offsets and not through actual emission reductions.

But the riff I want to highlight is the idea that the problem is so big, and the proposed solution is so small, that it’s better to do nothing than take a step towards the solution. Funnily enough Members’ Bills can only ever be partial solutions due to the constraints of standing orders.

Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Resource Management (Climate Protection) Bill sought to return to the RMA “the consideration of climate change in the granting of air discharge consents and the formulation of regional plans”. The Greens argue that climate change requires responses at all levels – individual, community, council, government and international – and having climate change emissions ignored by the RMA makes for planning and decision that make emissions worse. For example, the commissioners on the Rodney gas station were unable to consider the emissions from that plant as having any impact on the environment. Despite this, one of the arguments used by National’s Nicky Wagner in the debate [not online yet] was that climate change is far too big an issue to leave it to the RMA or Councils to deal with. Well, obviously, but is that a reason not to allow the RMA and Councils to play their part?

Also up for Second Reading was former MP Matt Robson’s Liquor Advertising Bill that would have restricted liquor advertising on television to between 10pm and midnight (currently 8:30pm to midnight). The Bill’s new sponsor, Brendan Burns, acknowledged that the Bill was not the whole answer to the problem, but that: “It confronts what can be done immediately to reduce the harm of alcohol advertising.” Yet, despite National MPs accepting that excessive drinking by young people is a serious problem, National’s Nikki Kaye tried to argued that:  “We need to consider the whole problem” as a reason to oppose this step. Despite it being a conscience vote, all National MPs voted nay.

All I can say is that we’d be well advised to apply the motto from Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody: “From little things, big things grow…”

This agreement, under which the Greens and ministers will work together in several policy areas, clearly owes a great deal to the all-embracing approach of the Prime Minister, as well as to a new pragmatism in the Greens…The Greens went into the last election saying they could not support a National government, and watched John Key’s Administration quickly cancel several of their pet policies under Labour.

It is correct to say the Greens wouldn’t support a National government and the Memorandum of Understanding signed last week does not change this.  But the “pragmatism” is not new, it was signalled at the Greens AGM last year and mentioned often by the Co-Leaders during the election campaign.  The Herald speculates further:

The agreement may also owe something to the imminent retirement of the Greens’ co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons. Her unwillingness to compromise lent a certain purity to the party but also denied it a place among the decision-makers. Russel Norman, her fellow co-leader, was unconvincing when he sought to play down the major shift in the Green’s approach.

Except that Jeanette has been as vocal as anyone on how the Greens might work with National.  Not just before, but also after the election she often spoke publically of meeting with John Key to explore the options.  Key is also on record saying the same thing.

And Russel un-convincing?  I supposed that’s not surprising given he couldn’t effectively downplay a major shift when there was no major shift to downplay.  Where has the Editor of the Herald been for the last year?

But the piece ends on this positive note:

The party could even begin to appeal to a broader section of the electorate. The partnership may just provide the impetus to make the Greens a greater force.

The Greens have changed not a bit, but I’ll just say Amen to that.

The Prime Minister did a good imitation of saying nothing definite and implying that the Declaration was more or less just an aspirational text. He said they would watch to see what caveats’ the Aussies put on supporting the Declaration before they made a decision.

It may be that the Declaration is highly symbolic rather than an internal programme of action for Aotearoa/New Zealand, but the greatest symbolism is in who refuses to sign it.

It does raise the issue of why is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is being called aspirational!? Are the rights of women, people with disabilities, children etc merely aspirational or does this only apply to the Declaration on indigenous rights? If so why ??

As of this week only USA, Canada and Aotearoa/New Zealand are refusing to support the Declaration. 144 countries have signed on to it and 11 have abstained while Australia has decided to show some support. The Green Party wants to know what the new Government here intends to do on this issue. After today’s display of prevarication I am not holding my breath. The key issue is that the UN Declaration acknowledges the collective self determination of indigenous peoples, which seems to have scared the hell out of both Labour and National.

Normally we would never advocate following Australia on issues of cultural justice, their record speaks for itself in all its genocidal brutality, but at least the Rudd Government has made a positive move. The UN Declaration has flaws and weaknesses but it does take a stand for indigenous collectivive self determination across the earth. 

We will just keep on asking our Prime Minister to join the ethical majority at the United Nations on this issue. After all his Government is in a Confidence and Supply agreement with a tangata whenua political party, doesn’t he owe them the recognition of their human rights?

New Zealand’s chances of turning into North Körea got a little bit slimmer thanks to the current Government’s plan to cancel the TVNZ charter. In 2003 when the then Labour government introduced the TVNZ Charter aimed at bolstering our national identity I thought yippee.  National identity bolstering is good stuff.  It’s supporting the Black Caps and the All Blacks.  Some flasher frogs also like to go to the NZ Ballet or maybe the Opera.  All good I thought.Then I read this quote from current Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman when he was National’s Broadcasting spokesperson in 2007.

When the Minister says that the Government is committed to the core objective of building national identity and will do so through television, does he not realise that New Zealanders do not want to be told by the Government what their identity is, and that using a State-owned broadcaster to try to shape national identity is actually a feature of totalitarian regimes, not Western democracies; or does he secretly fancy himself as the “MP for Palmerston North Korea”?

Not so good.  I was living in Stasi era East Germany kind of like that movie ‘The Lives of Others’ and all because of the TVNZ Charter.  Better change the thing.  Which is exactly what was planned in 2008.

A select committee looked at the charter.  The committee was made up of Labour and National MPs who agreed that  - yep the charter needed a bit of work but tweaking it would be enough.  Sweet as – maybe I was now living in a freer society.

Luckily the Prime Minister and Mr Coleman were taking no chances and got rid of the whole shebang.  Sure their fellow MPs had agreed to update the charter and despite assertions to the contrary the wholesale abolishment of the Charter wasn’t explicitly spelled out in National’s broadcasting policy.  When faced with New Zealand turning into a totalitarian state though it’s probably better not to risk it aye!

I have blogged about this issue frequently, but not yet addressed the key argument of National – that private prisons are cheaper.

So I used my speech last night to refer to both Australian and US research that showed that privately run prisons are not demonstrably cheaper for the public than publicly run prisons. Below are some extracts and links to the documents.

What is of most concern of course, is that if the cost to the public is essentially the same, where are the massive profits coming from? That can only be from a significant reduction in the provision of rehab services, health services, retraining, significant staff reductions and other core services that help to reduce the reoffending rate of prisoners. Hence the argument that as the key to a successful business is repeat customers, providing a perverse incentive for private prison management to minimise programs that reduce reoffending.

The US Department of Justice report, Emerging Issues on Privatised Prisons clearly showed that the privatisation model simply mimicked the public sector in practically every critical way. The promises from private companies in the US of 20% savings simply did not eventuate. Any modest savings made were by reductions in staffing and other labour related costs. The report concluded that the amount of savings in corrections costs “will not revolutionise modern correctional practices.” In other words has no practical impact on the cost of running prisons or on the practice of running prisons.

An Australian report, “Privatisation and New South Wales Prisons: Value for Money and Neo-liberal Regulation” published just last year also showed that the privatisation of prison did not result in value for money or a significant reduction in costs. In fact, the paper shows that the rhetoric of cost effectiveness undermined alternative criteria for assessment, such as safety, educational outcomes, or reduced reoffending. This is where the National government is duping the public. By misleading the public on the efficiency of private prison management they are diverting attention from the most important issue of all – the effective use of taxpayers money to keep the community safe.

The government’s document Expectations for Pay and Employment Conditions in the State Sector seems to be placing pressure on many tertiary-education institutions to depress wages rather than face explaining higher wage bills to the state services commissioner. The document, which covers all employment negotiations in the state sector, calls for fiscally sustainable outcomes and the avoidance of flow-on implications across the public sector.

There is some ambiguity about the extent to which tertiary-education institutions, which have traditionally stood at arm’s length from the rest of the state sector, are affected by the expectations. Nevertheless, the Tertiary Education Union’s national secretary, Sharn Riggs, says there is increasing anecdotal evidence of concern among tertiary-education workers that institutions may adjust their negotiating position because of the requirement to consult with the commission.

Students of course will still have to pay considerable amounts for thier education and universities will be under even greater pressure to breach the 5% fee maxima cap over the coming years. Meanwhile the government is looking to further reduce its contribution to what is undoubtably a public good, as well as private benefit.

Among the expectations placed upon the state sector are a requirement to consult the commission before implementing conditions that will result in increased costs of employment; another to try to target any recruitment and retention issues that arise without fuelling wage inflation and with regard to potential flow-on implications; and an instruction to avoid backdating terms of settlement.
If an agency wishes to pursue a course of action which could be seen to be at odds with these expectations, it may need approval from its governing ministers of state services and finance. Ms Riggs says that it is important the CEOs and vice-chancellors continue to bargain in good faith with their employees, despite the restrictions placed on them by the government’s expectations.

University staff have already gone through some very difficult times over the last few years, with staff being lost as courses are cut to maximise the profit incentive. Those cuts have resulted in core humanities, politics and other courses being cut or severely restricted with the focus shifted to business and computing. Universities risk losing some of thier core functions in research and as leaders in critical analysis.

“Tertiary education is one area where business is up rather than down. Our members are doing more work and accommodating more students. They won’t look favourably on employment negotiations that roll back pay or conditions because of the economic environment,” Ms Riggs said. “Lower wages will not solve our economic crisis, the solution will come from more skills training and education, which our members can provide and for which they should be fairly rewarded.”

So right at the time when teritary education will be a key means of managing unemployment, so as to keep building the capability and expertise of people as jobs become scarce, univeristies will be under even greater pressure to cuts costs and ultimately staff to save money.

National is pursuing its plan to cut government spending but in those areas we most need certainty and consistency inorder to ride out the recession.

My question today directly concerning Maori and their loss of rights under the RMA reforms was transferred by the government from the Maori Affairs Minister to the Environment Minister. When I took a point of order on it, Nick Smith responded but the Maori Affairs Minister stayed silent. And of course, before my question was the long debacle of Gerry Brownlee stopping the Maori Affairs minister from answering Labour’s questions about the foreshore review.

I agree that Labour have no cred on the foreshore issue. But the Minister should still answer questions within his ministerial portfolio even from Cullen. There is nothing that suggests that he will make any blunders like other National MPs have. So why is he gagged?

Pita Sharples did defend his reputation today but he should defend the right of Maori to hear from thier Minister. Why is he not standing up to his Cabinet colleagues and demanding that he answer questions about Maori issues? Otherwise Maori could rightly think that the National government is gagging the Maori Affairs spokesperson in an effort to lock Maori out of the public discourse, on Maori issues. That was the old bad Pakeha dominance of last century, why is a Maori Party MP allowing this to happen to them in the 21st century?

But it’s hardly the stuff of major government announcements.

Transpower is in charge of its own maintenance programme and its funding. We pay for it through our power bills. The fact that is has decided, after a litle talk with the minister, to accelerate its maintenance programme planned for the next ten years is Transpower’s decision and funded by Transpower. Yet it was the subject of major government spin, before and after the announcement. There’s no new money here and no government money – just a common sense acceleration of maintenance, which we applaud.

There has been quite a lot of smoke and mirrors around the Infrastructure package, much of which is not new money. Commitments of the previous government have been rubbished because they had not yet been through a budget process but somehow the Infrastructure package, which hasn’t either, is “funded” while insulating homes out of the Emissions Trading Scheme electricity revenues was “unfunded”.

I’m sure most people will take from yesterday’s preview and today’s announcement, “Great – the government is going to fix up our electricity system”.