Archive
Good luck to Phillipstown School!
It was almost exactly a month ago that the Ministry of Education – at the behest of this shabby, poor-excuse-for-a-government, announced the closure and “merger” of several schools in Christchurch;
.
Acknowledgement: TV3 – Tears, shock as Chch school mergers announced
.
Phillipstown School was one of three schools chosen to “merge” with others – in effect another closure.
However, tonight (30 June), Phillipstown School will be following in the footsteps of Salisbury School (see previous blogpost: Why Salisbury School was right to be wary of this government) in refusing to take this threat to their existence lying down. In a press release today, Phillipstown School made it’s position crystal clear,
The Board of Phillipstown School will be filing judicial review proceedings in the Christchurch High Court on Monday. The School is seeking a declaration that the Minister of Education’s decision to close Phillipstown school and merge it with Woolston school from the beginning of 2014 is illegal and in breach of the Education Act 1989.
Acknowledgement: Scoop Media – Phillipstown School launches Judicial Review
As Board of Trustees Chairperson, Wayne West, said on Scoop Media,
“The Minister’s decision appears to be based on mistakes of fact. The statutory consultation required with the School and with the parents of students was also illegal because the officials refused to give us the information needed to respond to claims about the costs of remediating the earthquake damage at the school, and other property related issues. The Minister cited both of these as key reasons for her decision.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
As this blogger has pointed out previously, it seems to be the height of callousness and indifference to the stress and suffering of Christchurch people over the past two years. With two major earthquakes and thousands of aftershocks; damaged infra-structure; disrupted services; closed or struggling businesses; and the heart of the city all but destroyed – National Ministers seem content to add human-imposed misery upon Cantabrians.
This is the worst possible time to be “rationalising” any public service in that city.
I believe that National will suffer badly in the next election if they persevere with their appallingly-concocted plans.
This blogger supports schools in Christchurch; the staff; the parents, and children, to help preserve their already stressed communities. They deserve support and assistance – not further under-mining of public services.
I hope their request for a Judicial Review is successful.
And I hope that National MPs in the Canterbury electorates receive the full opprobrium of voters, at the next election, for their shameful conduct. Perhaps it is time for Cantabrians to send a “seismic political shock” to this government?
Good luck, Phillipstown School!
.
*
.
Previous related blogposts
Four schools to close in Aranui, Christchurch
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A: With Martyn Bradbury, Julie Fairey and Keith Locke
– Citizen A –
–
– 27 June 2013 –
–
– Julie Fairey & Keith Locke –
–
This week on Citizen A host Martyn Bradbury, Julie Fairey & Keith Locke debate the following issues:
Issue 1: Poll Dive for David Shearer. Does this latest Herald Digi-Poll scare Labour’s caucus into reconsidering Shearer as leader?
Issue 2: Would a NZ First backed GCSB bill be the worst outcome for New Zealand?
Issue 3: And what did Auckland mayor Len Brown give away to get the support of this National-led Government?
Citizen A screens on Face TV, 7.30pm Thursday nights on Sky 89
.
*
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
The wealthy pontificating to the poor…
.
.
And with that comment in mind, our household watched, and cringed, and boiled with anger, as we watched The Vote on TV3 last Wednesday (19 June).
First of all was the question that TV3 deemed we should consider and reply to;
“Our kids: The problem’s not poverty, it’s parenting. Do you agree? Yes. No.”
What a loaded question!
Why not, “Our kids: The problem’s not poverty, it’s low incomes?”
Or, “Our kids: The problem’s not poverty, it’s successive governments enacting neo-liberal policies?”
Or – and I personally love this one – “Our kids: The problem’s not poverty, it’s the middle classes who have grown comfortable with their lot and have given up on the notion of an egalitarian society?”
The problem with the alternative questions is that they involve complex ideas; recent history; and looking at choices that Middle Class voters have made since 1989. In short, those questions involve thinking.
As the question stood on the night; “The problem’s not poverty, it’s parenting” – there was no real thinking involved. It was all about how people felt on trigger words such as social welfare; solo-mums; parental responsibility; etc.
Once those trigger words began to percolate through the minds of aspirationist middle class and angry working-class viewers, the results were wholly predictable; 63% voted ‘Yes’. (And the 36% who voted ‘No’ correlates roughly with the percentage of voters who supported Labour and the Greens at the 2011 general election – 38.54%).
.
Source: The Vote
.
If we were ever truly a caring, sharing, egalitarian society, it’s hard to see how.
The very nature of the question invited an emotive, rather than an considered, intelligent, response. It practically demanded plain old repetitive bigotry rather than insight, and the three panellists, Christine Rankin, Bob McCoskie, and Hannah Tamaki – all social conservatives – were more then happy to oblige.
Platitudes; cliches, mis-information, and smug instructions on how to feed a family on $20 a week… all came from the well-fed; well-clothed; expensively groomed; healthy; and high-income earning likes of Tamaki, McCoskrie, and Rankin.
It fed perfectly into every stereotype that New Zealanders have seen and heard since Once Were Warriors blew in our faces on our big screens in 1994.
And right on cue, the prejudiced; the mis-informed; and the plain spiteful came out and vented their bile on The Vote’s Facebook page. I was going to provide a few examples – but why bother? We’ve seen that kind of bigotted response already.
So how accurate was the voting response? There were claims that people could send in multiple votes from the same ‘platform’ (cellphone number, IP number, Twitter account). If so, the result would be rendered meaningless. One could imagine 3,000 Destiny Church members texting repeated ‘Yes’ votes with unholy speed.
Ten text messages, on average, from each member would equate to 30,000 “votes”. And with texting fees kindly waived by telcos, people could text to their hearts’ content. Free of charge. Ad nauseum.
(By contrast, our household studiously played the game fairly; we each voted once only, by text.)
However an unattributed statement from TV3’s ‘The Vote‘, on Bryan Bruce’s Facebook page, Inside Child Poverty, stated categorically that “you can only vote once on each platform“.
.
Acknowledgement: Inside Child Poverty New Zealand
.
If that is true (and it is by no means a given), then that raises equally disturbing questions about the nature of our society.
If the 63% “Yes” voters are reflective of New Zealanders then that says something about our much vaunted reputation of being a fair-minded, compassionate, egalitarian society.
Perhaps it was never so. Perhaps only a third of us can lay claim to being fair minded and tolerant – whilst the remainder two thirds simply make use of the generosity of their more liberal fellow-Kiwis?
I would like to think that is not true. I would like to think that is not true.I desperately want to believe it is not true.
Instead, perhaps the real emotion at play by those Two Thirds is not hatred of the poor – but fear of becoming like them. Add to that mix an unwillingness by many to even accept that poverty exists – hence endlessly repetitive cliches such as “Real poverty only exists in Africa” or “They spend all their money on Sky, pokies, booze, and cigarettes”.
It’s all a defense mechanism, of course. By denying a problem, you don’t have to do anything about it. Nor feel guilty at not doing anything about it.
My belief is that the poor are being blamed not simply because they are poor – but because they have not succeeded under neo-liberalism. They are poor despite the promises neo-liberal “Bright New Future” . The architects and builders of this Neo-liberal Nirvana don’t like being shown that their new paradigm is severely flawed not working as it should.
That is why there is so much anger being directed at the poor. They are the proof that the School of Chicago theory of economics – that the Market shall provide – is a fraud.
Neo-liberalism’s acolytes, the politically powerful; the wealthy; the aspirationist Middle Classes; the technocrats – all stand accused of failure by the poorest; most powerless; most vulnerable people in our society. The mere presence of the poor and dispossed points an accusatory finger at the neo-liberal establishment and those in society who support it.
And doesn’t that just piss them off?
So come 2014 (if not earlier) let’s piss Neo-liberal’s Acolytes off a little further. It’s time for a center-left wing government to take office. Because after my shame, anger, and frustration wore of, I was filled with even more determination to play my part in changing our society.
We need to re-set our nation’s moral, social, and economic compass.
And watching The Vote was just the determination I (and our household) needed. So thank you Ms Tamaki, Ms Rankin, and Mr McCoskrie – I feel more motivated than ever to make New Zealand a decent society again.
We will not surrender.
.
“We need to give the homeless and other disenfranchised a voice. Homelessness is not a choice, a decision, a lack of effort.
When I first came to New Zealand there were hardly any homeless people but now there are heaps, so where have we gone wrong?” – Simon Buckingham, Auckland Lawyer and one-time homeless person
.
*
.
Meanwhile, in another Universe far, far away…
.
Acknowledgement: The Guardian – £13tn hoard hidden from taxman by global elite
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 June 2013.
.
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: 126 Meals for $20 – show us how?
.
.
= fs =
Green Party action on deep-sea drilling
.
.
The Green Party is considering further action on the problematic issue of deep-sea drilling of our coasts. Environmental spokesperson on Mining and Toxics, Gareth Hughes writes,
The Government is currently taking bids from oil companies to explore 189,000 square kilometres of our coastal waters.
The Government should know that Kiwis don’t want their beaches threatened by the risks of oil drilling, so we’ve set up a competing bid, the Kiwibid to allow Kiwis to voice their opposition to these plans.
If you’re ready to take action on deep sea oil drilling, join me for a live online Q and A session about what’s happening and how you can help. Join the Q and A session to discuss ways to encourage New Zealanders to sign up to the Kiwibid, and find out other ways we can work together to stop oil drilling.
When: Next Wednesday, 26 June at 8:00pm
Where: At your computer, live and online
Watch the livestream online: HereIf you have questions about deep sea oil drilling and how you can help, I would love to hear them.
Email me your questions (kiwibid@greens.org.nz) then tune in to see the answers.
Thanks, and I hope you can join me next Wednesday.
Gareth Hughes
Deep sea drilling is an issue – and potential crisis – that I believe has not yet filtered into the public consciousness (too much bloody X Factor, Seven Sharp, and cooking porn on TV). Should a worst case scenario come to pass, our coastline could end up facing a crisis surpassing that of the Gulf of Mexico disaster in 2010.
Consider for a moment that it took the most technologically advanced nation on this planet; with almost unlimited resources and wealth; nearly three months to cap the oil gush.
This was my suggestion to the Green Party on this problematic issue,
Like many New Zealanders, I’ve taken the stranding of the m.v. Rena on 11 October 2011, and the subsequent oil spill, as a clear warning that New Zealand is incapable of containing such a disaster. Regardless of the mealy-mouthed reassurances by National ministers (none of whom have soiled their own hands to help clean the East Coast beaches of Rena’s oil), it’s fairly evident that if we couldn’t cope with the Rena – then a Deepwater Horizon type disaster would be utterly beyond our resources.
An oil spill of Deepwater Horizon proportions – which took the Americans EIGHTYSEVEN days to contain – would be an immense enviromental disaster of our coast.
So how to prevent National from implementing it’s policy of permitting deep sea drilling/prospecting?
1. Put all oil companies on notice that any contracts will be cancelled by an incoming Labour-Green-Mana government and that there will be no compensation.
This gives them fair warning of potential change of government policy.
After all, if National can change legislation such as labour laws, which previous governments have implemented, then a progressive government has the same sovereign right.
2. Set up a Crown-owned entity which will have all off-shore leases transferred into their ownership. This crown company should be independent; funded through the Remuneration Authority (so that political interference can’t choke of funding for company directors); and a contract made between Government and this Crown company to hold all leases in perpetuity. The Board of Directors should comprise of Iwi, environmental groups, local bodies, and representatives of other groups. If National can attempt to commit future governments to a contract with Skycity to build a new conference centre, then a center-left government should be able to do likewise.
If Option 2 is unworkable, then option 3,
3. Demand a US$1 billion bond per oil drilling facility; demand that each company commit to long-term corporate-entity representation in New Zealand (so legal papers can be served locally, if necessary); demand that all disputes be covered under NZ jurisdiction; demand that fully staffed, state-of-the-art oil containment technology be held in each distinct area where deep sea drilling is being undertaken. And any other safety, legal, financial matters not covered here.
4. Hold accountable every Minister of the Crown who signs a deep-water oil drilling consent. Accountability to include being charged with negligence, malfeasance, and contributing to any resulting oil spill. Prison terms to be considered.
Option 4 is particularly relevant. Considering that the Pike River Mine disaster was a direct consequence of National’s “reforms” to the Mines Inspectorate in the early 1990s; and considering that none of the Ministers responsible were ever help accountable (Kate Wilkinson’s token resignation being only a sacrificial goat); and considering that 29 men lost their lives as a result of National’s policies, it is evident that government ministers need to be held to account for their actions .
I especially have a fondness for Option 4: Hold accountable every Minister of the Crown who signs a deep-water oil drilling consent… Prison terms to be considered.
It is high time that government ministers who enact legislation that eventuate in dire consequences, should be help to account.
If government Ministers were held personally responsible it might slow down the process of so-called “reforms” and reduce Bills passed under “Urgency”.
After all, National demands the same responsibility from the rest of us.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 June 2013.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Focus on Politics for 28 June 2013
.
– Focus on Politics –
.
– Friday 28 June 2013 –
.
– Brent Edwards –
.
Starting today, as with Citizen A, this blog will be posting regular links to Radio NZ’s Politics on Nine to Noon and Focus on on Politics. This will give visitors to this blog access to three excellent political programmes on one website. Click on the “Broadcast” category at the top navigation bar for past programmes.
.
.
Click to Listen: Focus on Politics for 28 June 2013 ( 17′ 31″ )
A weekly analysis of significant political issues. A week after submissions closed on the Government’s new spy legislation there are doubts about whether it has enough support to get it through Parliament.
John Key;
“… and by the way, very senior Labour members within that caucus understand completely the importance of national security and of keeping New Zealanders safe. And the very question they might have to ask themselves if one day there was the equivalent of the Boston Bombings in New Zealand would they be the very same Members that would stand up and say they prevented New Zealanders being kept safer than they otherwise could be. No they wouldn’t, they’d run for the hills.”
.
.
= fs =