Today the Herald printed an article headed ‘NZ Youth losing out in health, education, jobs.’ The article is based on the NZ institute’s latest report, which found that New Zealand has:

-The second-highest proportion of the unemployed who are aged 15 to 19

-The highest teen suicide rate

-One of the highest school dropout rates

The Institue Director, Dr Rick Boven, makes special mention of New Zealand’s high levels of inequality as a contributing factor. He also talks about the lack of transition into different forms of education and the need to match training and education with areas where we have workforce shortages.

Couple of things struck me from this report and the article itself.  Alternative forms of education are necessary and important. Why then are there threats that our alternative education programmes might be cut?

If matching education to the areas where we have a skills shortages is so crucial, why did the Government dump the skills strategy?

And if the health of young people is an issue, surely it would be wise for a Government to properly fund our youth health one stop shops, who provide help with general health needs, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health issues. Currently up to three of these services have faced closure this year alone, despite a Government commissioned report that they are providing a useful and necessary service for young people, who might otherwise not be catered for.

So the headline really does says it all. The Government’s response on some of these issues probably does too.

Here’s a great little video from the Te Tai Tonga Labour folks who did the Easter thing for Wellington’s cleaners.

There’s a fantastic organisation in London called London Citizens which is a grassroots charity campaigning on social, economic and environmental justice.  They organise by training people of all ages, faiths and backgrounds to take action together for change.  After twelve years of organising, their membership includes over one hundred civil society organisations across London and some significant victories.

The stand-out campaign for London Citizens is their Living Wage campaign.

Since its launch back in 2001, the campaign has put an estimated £24 million back in the pockets of low-waged workers.

The London Living Wage Unit was established by the previous mayor, Ken Livingstone who calculated that Londoners need an hourly wage rate of 16% above the national minimum wage rate to lift them above the poverty level.

While many employers, contractors and councils have signed up, most impressive of all is the support for the London Living Wage from Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson.

Boris has no powers to impose the proposed wage on London businesses, but says it is not only “morally right” but also good for companies keen to retain a motivated and productive workforce.

“During these testing times, it is vital that we invest in order to pay Londoners a fair and decent wage,” Johnson says.

Living Wage is about more than wages. Employers also agree to ethical employment and ethical procurement practice, along with 20 days holidays a year, plus bank holidays, 10 days full sick pay a year and recognition of trade union rights.

Although I’m wary of regional rates, it would great to see any candidate for the Auckland supercity take up the wages and conditions of workers, particularly low paid workers across Auckland as part of their election manifesto.

This certainly isn’t the first time that the Minister of Social Development has pushed legislation/policy changes that contradict statements she made in the past.

The cuts to the TIA are the most memorable – given that she has said on numerous occassions that would ‘back those women everytime’… those women being those solo mums – and then she reduced the support to them to train… support that she herself had received.

Now her new move is to work test DPB recipients – because (as she stated on numerous ocassions in the house yesterday), ‘it is far better that they are working’. The Attorney General has come out saying very clearly that the new ‘future focus welfare reforms’ discrimate against sole parents on the basis of gender; family status and martial status.

It’s interesting that Paula is so staunchly pushing for sole parents to be out in the workforce, given that this is what she said in her maiden speech:

“More women are in paid employment than ever before, and their contribution is immeasurable. However, when we hear of someone, currently working, who becomes pregnant, one of our first questions is: “How long will she be taking off work?” There is a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—push for women to return to the workforce as soon as possible. But I ask members not to misunderstand me. I advocate for choice —for women to work part time or full time in paid work, or not at all, or to stay at home and raise their children.”

Now when she states that, “More women are in paid employment than ever before, and their contribution is immeasurable”… we all know that this was the case under labour (keep in mind that her maiden speech was given in 2005).

Mostly what I do wonder, is – what happened to her desire to see women given the CHOICE to stay home with kids OR take up full-time or part-time employment. Why is she now (on paper at least) introducing work testing to push women (cos lets face it – most of them will be women) out in the to a workforce WHERE THERE IS NO WORK!

That was the headline that greeted readers of the New Zealand Herald for much of 2008. The Electoral Finance Act was a less than perfect piece of legislation, but the hyperbole that surrounded the campaign against it was extraordinary. So where are those who ran this campaign now, in the face of this

The Government has cancelled an October regional council election, depriving 378,512 Kiwis of a vote for the next 3 1/2 years.

That is how the Dominion Post described the government’s decision to replace the elected Council with commissioners, and in a move that defies belief to not hold elections until 2013. That means that the people of the greater Canterbury region will not get a vote along with other local authorities later this year.

Why? Well Nick Smith gives us an insight in this morning’s Timaru Herald

Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners – rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested – was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.

That’s right, Nick Smith is wary of the outcome of an election. That’s right, in Nick Smith’s view you can’t trust democracy.  An election can throw up results you don’t like , but that does not mean you get to cancel it!

This has been a really week for democracy (not to mention that last few months in terms of Auckland). Last week amid the understandable focus on mining and welfare changes there was not a lot of debate on the government’s decision to not have a spending cap for the MMP referendum.  Despite there being a cap for citizens initiated referenda, there is not one for this one.  I well remember the first referendum where Peter Shirtcliffe and his mates poured money into the anti-MMP campaign, and very nearly pulled off a result.

This is an issue of fairness.   We have to balance participant equality and participant freedom, and that requires a spending limit.

Comments to Anne Tolley and her response this week from an ODT report.

“We’re not militant, we’re middle class. We care for this nation, and for the children…”

To jeers and laughter, Mrs Tolley said: “I’ve listened to [the concerns] but rejected it.”

It was a minister’s prerogative to make the final decision, she maintained, and then advised those unhappy with that situation to stand for Parliament themselves.

And here is an op-ed from a retired principal who’s been round the block and got a bit of wisdom.

Anne Tolley refusing to admit that you can’t have national standards without inter school moderation. And Louise Upston is the backbencher who a year into her job was silly enough to read out the patsy supplementary question that Tolley had written down for her three times notwithstanding she had been told it was out of order twice.

Particularly telling is the way Joyce and Finlayson have their heads down as she answers. They appear to have given up even pretending that she is doing a good job.

For those without broadband – answer below.

(more…)

A very good column from Gay Keating from the Public Health Association in today’s Dominion Post commenting on the importance of so-called ‘backroom’ staff to the functioning of the health system.

We absolutely need the doctors and nurses, physios and psychotherapists, dialysis technicians and radiotherapists. But we also need the computer staff, the pay clerks and the hospital cleaners. Having adequate support staff allows clinical staff to get on with their jobs. Otherwise, it’s the doctors and nurses who end up having to order equipment and fill out paperwork.

This is the major concern expressed to me by people right across our public services. Those on the ‘frontline’ are only able to do their jobs properly if they have good support.

As Gay points out those considered backroom are in fact involved in the frontline of providing health services.

So called “backroom bureaucrats” play a vital role in keeping us safe and healthy. They set food-handling standards and inspect cafes so customers don’t get food poisoning. They check that people’s immunisations are up to date, that women are having their breast screening and cervical smears, that middle-aged men are getting their blood pressure checked, that people with diabetes are having their eyes checked, that older people are getting their flu shots. Every year we need bureaucrats and lab technicians to make sure the flu jab has the right mix of virus strains. And for every vaccine, it’s bureaucrats who make sure the products are transported and stored safely.

Exactly. Good, efficient, public services require a balance of staff who are seen and not seen by the public. making artificial distinctions for political reasons as National is doing will not lead to better public services.

Todd went down the wrong path when he disrespectfully brought Nia Glassie in to the debate.  He went in to a rant abour how she was surrounded by people on benefits and therefore (in his mind) this led to her murder.

This was not only bad taste but it was offensive.  Not only is the Govt trying to stigmatise beneficiaries as lazy; dole bludgers, ripping off the system BUT NOW they are adding – child abusers and even child murderers – to the stigma.

I personally take great offence to this inference.

I’m looking forward to attending a very special celebration of  an important part of Labour Party history.

In August this year, the Princes Street branch of the Party will celebrate its 50^th anniversary.   Many current and former Labour MPs including Helen Clark and Phil Goff were members of the branch.  I was its chair in 1987/8.  The branch is looking to hold a formal celebration in Auckland and wants to hear from former members to join their Alumni contact list.

If you have been a member of Princes St branch, please email 50years@princes-st.org.nz and register your name on the mailing list.

The Nats pollster DPF has posted his view on the election timetable. Hard to tell whether he is testing the possibility of pre World Cup election or not. He makes it clear that post Cup election is possible. It will be interesting to see if Key decides to take the risk. Here it is:-

“If 26 November is picked, here are my guesses for the key dates:

1.  
   1. RWC Final Sat 22 Oct
   2. Parliament adjournment debate Wed 26 Oct
   3. Dissolution of Parliament Thu 27 Oct
   4. Writ Day Fri 28 Oct
   5. Nominations Day Thu 3 Nov
   6. Election Day Sat 26 Nov
   7. Official Results Tue 6 Dec
   8. Deadline for Recounts Fri 9 Dec
   9. Return of Writs Tue 13 Dec
   10. MPs sworn in, elects Speaker Tue 20 Dec
   11. Parliament resumes, elects Deputy Speakers Wed 21 Dec
   12. Parliament adjourns Thu 22 Dec”

Last week Wayne Mapp announced the amalgamation of Foundation for Research,Science and Technology (FRST) and the Ministry of Science Research and Technology (MoRST).

This could provide a real opportunity, but only if Mapp seizes it.

For most NZers, these changes seem pretty arcane. There are two relatively minor issues: 1) Separating science funding from overall science policy raises issues, though the Govt’s Cabinet paper recommends some safeguards. 2) The money it will save is pretty negligible – perhaps $2 million, but the costs of the transition, inevitable confusion and lack of productivity probably cancel those savings out for some years to come.

It’s really shuffling deck chairs, giving the appearance of being busy and reformist.

The big decision – and opportunity – is still to come. Who will head the new organisation? This is a chance for the Govt to look globally to hire an inspired and proven science and innovation specialist who can bring experience from say, Finland, Singapore, Denmark to apply their world leading expertise here.

That could turn the new organisation into something dynamic and world leading to really power NZ’s science and link it to innovation and commercialisation.

Watch this space. But don’t be surprised if a Wellington insider, in true State Services fashion, is appointed.

Mapp needs to make his preference known … if he’s thought about it that is. This is an acid test of how serious the Govt really is.

Hope this will be the first of many posts about the opportunities there are to invest in jobs for New Zealanders. Not only jobs, but the industry that supports those jobs, the skills that build industries and the spin offs through the economy.

Late last year, the National Govt approved a $500 million loan to Kiwirail to be spent on the electrification of Auckland’s rail system. Note the money is a loan and must be paid back.

Don’t you think that $500m would be best spent inside New Zealand than outside? As an investment in New Zealand’s rail system and in the highly innovative and skilled industry and workforce that supports it.

There’s a growing group in who support this concept. There’s an economic case to be made. Both the Hillside Workshops in Dunedin and Woburn Workshops in the Hutt can and should bid.

Last week Steven Joyce, as Minister, was asked his view in the House on the importance of this work going to Kiwi workers.

Darren Hughes: What steps will the Government be taking to ensure that all or a substantial number of these units are built or assembled here in New Zealand, either at the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin or at Woburn in the Hutt Valley?

STEVEN JOYCE: This will be a competitive tender process, and, of course, KiwiRail will have the opportunity to bid for that process. The most important thing, however, is getting the right value for money for taxpayers in developing the trains and ensuring that we can obtain the trains within the $500 million budget that has been set.

Equivocal in terms of how the tender will be decided, but unequivocal in that Kiwirail can bid.

If rail is a part of our future, then surely the industry that underpins it is as important. The skills base in NZ is considerable, but it has a questionable future. Unless there is investment in it.

Interesting that the tender time frame is so short. Hope Kiwis get the chance to seriously bid for this work and be considered on their merit.

The Minister for the Rugby World Cup has hinted that he thinks that this is the last time it will come here.

I think if we didn’t get it this time or next he would have been correct.

Whether we get it again depends on how well we go next year.  And it looks like McCully has lost interest.

Labour wanted it to be subsidised by overseas taxpayers through trips here being tax deductible – especially in the UK and South Africa, and to a lesser extent in the other three nations, Australia and Japan. That meant at least a pretense of work related activity. It is what drove the economic success of the Americas Cup here in 2003.

Went looking for the conference programme associated with the Cup on the websites. Nothing there.

But then again McCully didn’t even ask Key and English for a few hundred thousand in seed money to get this going a year ago.

Maybe he doesn’t want the big spenders here next year.

Or does he just lack ambition for New Zealand.

For the record I think we could do it again probably in the 2030s and it will depend on getting a decent stadium with proper trqansport links in Auckland.