Archive
Professor Bill English lectures young New Zealanders on free education
.
.
The new Labour-led Coalition is preparing to implement it’s election promise of one year free tertiary education, planned to start this year. By 2024, Labour plans to increase free tertiary education to three years. As their website points out;
Government investment in tertiary education and training has fallen and so has participation. In 2010, 40 per cent of 18-24 year olds were in tertiary education or training, but by 2015 (the latest data) that had dropped to 35 per cent.
Despite Labour’s interest-free loans, cost remains a major barrier to post-school education. 65 per cent of parents list cost as a reason young people do not go into post-school learning, and 44 per cent of students report they do not have enough money to meet their basic needs. The cost barrier comprises both fees, which are up over 40 per cent since 2008, and rising living costs such as rent.
Study debt holds people back for years after they leave education. On average, people take eight years to clear their debt. Repayments make it harder to save and this is a contributing factor in plummeting home ownership among under 40s.
Education minister, Chris Hipkins has stated that apprentices and industry trainees will receive two years of fees-free training as their courses are not fulltime.
User-pays (even partially) in tertiary education has been one of the cornerstones of neo-liberalism. Prior to 1990, tertiary education was mostly free. After 1990, Universities began charging fees for tuition. In 1992, the Student Loan Scheme was enacted.
Fees have even been rising in secondary school education – traditionally considered free for users – under the guise of “donations”. Under-funding of the education system has been so bad that schools have been “caught masking voluntary donations as school fees“. As Palmerston North Boys’ High School rector, David Bovey, revealed in September 2016;
“We could not exist in our current form on the Ministry of Education Operation Grant. Thus, we really do rely on the goodwill of parents to support what we do.”
Between 2000 and 2015 “voluntary donations” to state schools amounted to more than $1 billion. Some schools drew more than $2 million in so-called “voluntary donations” in a year.
The notion of free education in this country has become like our “clean and green” environment and “100% Pure” rivers: a fiction. New Zealanders are deluding themselves if they believe education is still free.
The Labour-led coalition’s policy of gradually increasing free tertiary education will be the un-picking of twentyeight years of neo-liberal user-pays in the education sector.
The Right are not happy.
Bill English – currently filling in his duties as Leader of the Opposition until he is rolled – was scathing and irrational in his condemnation of the Coalition’s free first year plans. On 17 January, on Radio NZ’s Summer Report, he responded to questioning regarding the Coalition’s planned education reforms, saying;
.
.
@ 6.01:
“ The free first year of tertiary education that’s free was explained to us as, um, y’know being paid for by getting rid of what was the tax cuts that were on the books, was explained to us in Parliament as MPs didn’t need the thousand dollars a year. Well, in my case they’ve handed my household now six thousand dollars a year! Because we have someone eligible for the first year of free education. So it’s a very expensive, very poorly targetted policy that will have the effect of getting maybe a few thousand, a couple of thousand more people into tertiary education. I think that’s what the officials have said. So it would’ve been better if they didn’t implement it. ’cause it’s a hugely expensive way to get a few more people into polytech.”
“Poorly targetted”?
How can free tertiary education be “poorly targetted” when it will be focused on New Zealanders wanting further education; on-going training; to be better equipped for the rapidly evolving needs of the 21st Century?
How can it be any more “poorly targetted” than the tax cuts of 2009 and 2010 – and National’s planned tax cuts for this year – that gave massive windfalls of cash to the highest income earners? As Audrey Young reported in the NZ Herald in February 2010;
Herald calculations on the basis of one of the scenarios in the tax working group report (cutting personal tax rates to 30c, 19c and 10.5c) would see someone on $50,000 get about $12 a week net, taking into account higher prices with the GST increase.
A person on $90,000 would get about $50 more a week.
Mr Key has defended his plan against accusations it is skewed to the rich and is light on boldness.
On top of which, the tax-cuts for the wealthy and high-income earners was funded partly by raising GST from 12.5 to 15% – a move impacting on low-income earners the most. Increases in user-pays such as increased prescription charges in January 2013 (from $3 to $5) also hit low-income families and individuals the hardest.
According to research carried out by the Parliamentary Library, the 2010 tax cuts alone cost the country $2 billion.
But according to Bill English, helping young people to achieve academic and training goals is “poorly targetted”.
Bill English is the same politician who, in the last few years, has consistently denigrated young people and workers in this country.
“ A lot of the Kiwis that are meant to be available [for farm work] are pretty damned hopeless. They won’t show up. You can’t rely on them and that is one of the reasons why immigration’s a bit permissive, to fill that gap… a cohort of Kiwis who now can’t get a license because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable, you know, basically young males.”
“ One of the hurdles these days is just passing a drug test. Under workplace safety you can’t have people on your premises under the influence of drugs and a lot of our younger people can’t pass that test.”
And again in December year;
“Government’s fees-free policy will ‘soak up staff out of McDonald’s’...”
English’s contemptuous disdain for workers and young New Zealanders is apparent for all to see.
It should be remembered though, that (according to Wikipedia) Bill English undertook his tertiary education prior to 1987. Student fees/loans did not start until 1991/92.
[Bill] English went on to study commerce at the University of Otago, where he was a resident at Selwyn College, and then completed an honours degree in English literature at Victoria University of Wellington.
After finishing his studies, English returned to Dipton and farmed for a few years. From 1987 to 1989, he worked in Wellington as a policy analyst for the New Zealand Treasury…
Bill English graduated with his Commerce and English Lit degrees without having to pay fees or take out massive loans. His tertiary education was (near-)free.
This blogger wondered if his (near-)free tertiary education was “poorly targetted”? So I wrote to Mr English, seeking his clarification on matters that have arisen from his interview and comments;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Bill English <bill.english@parliament.govt.nz>
date: 18 January 2018
subject: Radio NZ interview – some follow-up questions.
Bill English
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament
Wellington.
Kia Ora Mr English,
On 17 January, on Radio NZ’s Summer Report, you criticised the Coalition government’s programme to implement one year free university for students and two years free trades courses for apprentices, and industry trainees as “poorly targetted”.
You were highly disparaging of the policy, complaining that;
“ …Well, in my case they’ve handed my household now six thousand dollars a year! Because we have someone eligible for the first year of free education. So it’s a very expensive, very poorly targetted policy that will have the effect of getting maybe a few thousand, a couple of thousand more people into tertiary education. I think that’s what the officials have said. So it would’ve been better if they didn’t implement it. ’cause it’s a hugely expensive way to get a few more people into polytech.”
Can you confirm the following points relating to this issue:
1. That you yourself received a near-free university education whilst studying commerce at the University of Otago, and then completed an honours degree in English literature at Victoria University of Wellington?
2. That you received a student allowance whilst studying?
3. That subsequent to the economic “reforms” of the 1980s and 1990s, that you paid less and less tax through subsequent tax cuts in those decades as well as 2009 and 2010?
4. That the (near-)free university education you yourself enjoyed was poorly targetted?
5. That you have benefitted doubly by next-to-nothing university fees as well as increased income through multiple tax cuts? And no student debt to pay off?
6. That young New Zealanders have not enjoyed the same benefits of a (near-)free tertiary education that you yourself had in the 1980s?
I look forward to any response you may have to shed light on this issue.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
.
Any response from Mr English will be reported in an up-date on this story.
.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: About 80,000 expected to get fees-free study in 2018
NZ Labour Party: Making tertiary education and training affordable for all
Productivity Commission: History of tertiary education reforms in New Zealand (p3)
Fairfax media: Under-pressure schools get dodgy with donations
Radio NZ: Live – Opposition leader Bill English (alt.link)
NZ Herald: Tax cuts – High earners set to benefit most
Fairfax media: Prescription price rise hits vulnerable
Scoop media: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
NZ Herald: Unions demand Bill English apologise for describing jobseekers as ‘pretty damned hopeless’
Fairfax media: Bill English says employers are regularly telling him that Kiwis can’t pass drug tests
Twitter: Newshub – Bill English “soak up staff out of McDonalds”
Wikipedia: Bill English
Previous related blogposts
Mr English: Where are National’s secret coalition negotiation papers?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 January 2018.
.
.
= fs =
2017: Parting shots from the Right: tantrums, bloated entitlements, and low, low expectations for our Youth – toru
.
.
.
Jamiebaby want Yum-Yums!!
.
.
As Parliament recently debated the new government’s Families Package Bill, some National MPs were increasingly upset that Urgency had briefly taken the debate into their precious lunch period;
.
.
Jamie Lee-Ross became hysterical at the prospect of his ‘lunchies’ being delayed, and screamed at the Parliamentary Chair, Adrian Rurawhe;
“ Point of order, point of order, I have a right to raise a point of order, I have a right to raise a point of order, point of order. This is outrageous, I have a right to raise a point of order. We have gone past 1 o’clock. It is in the Standing Orders of this Parliament, that there is the break for the lunch break.”
As blogger “Micky Savage” aptly put it for The Standard;
“ But with a late showing Moore’s antics were put to one side and National’s Jami Lee-Ross is this week’s doofus of the week. He earned this prize after putting on a huge hissy fit in Parliament after his lunch hour was delayed by 5 minutes. Refusing to accept Jacinda Ardern’s hope for a bi partisan effort to address child poverty is bad enough, trying to stonewall the enacting bill’s passage through the house was even worse, but throwing a temper tantrum because your lunch hour has been slightly delayed takes the cake.
Watch the video and marvel at the intensity of the temper tantrum thrown by him in raising the point of order. If my three year old behaved like this I would be embarrassed.”
.
.
The irony should not be lost on us all that the Families Package Bill – once passed – would help lift an estimated 88,000 families out of the trap that is poverty. This trap being one of neo-liberalism’s most vile legacies.
385,000 families would receive an extra $75 a week for groceries, power, accommodation, and other necessities that make the difference between living in dignity – or desperation.
If successful, this one single policy will be a crowning achievement for Labour, NZ First, and the Green Party. The coalition would have done more in a couple of months what National failed to achieve in nine years.
It is true that National MPs’s lunch was indeed delayed. But only because of their own constant filibustering, to stall passage of the bill, as reported by Fairfax’s Laura Walters;
Rurawhe stopped MPs from delivering their points of order because he believed they were “repetitive and trivial”, and were being used by MPs to re-litigate the same points, in an effort to filibuster the Families Package (Income and Tax Benefits) Bill.
The obscenity of this ploy is hard to overlook; right-wing MPs obstructing a bill to alleviate poverty and then complaining their lunch was being delayed.
This is the soulless nature of the National Party. They are prepared to play political games and indulge in childish petty point-scoring – even though it obstructs efforts to alleviate poverty in this country.
Even more scandalous is that no one in the mainstream media (including the much vaunted Radio NZ) has picked up this crass and utterly selfish abuse of parliamentary process.
But an even more twisted irony is Jamie Lee-Ross complaining about an industrial relations matter; a lunch break. More than one commentator on Fairfax, The Standard, and elsewhere have pointed out Lee-Ross’s hypocrisy on this issue. From Fairfax’s comments section;
.
.
.
.
From the Youtube comments;
.
.
.
And from The Standard;
.
.
.
And they’re all correct. Jami-Lee Ross has a vindictive, hostile view of trade unions.In January 2012, Ross was scathing of the Maritime Union in it’s dispute with Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL);
“ This is in fact a story of the Maritime Union biting the hand that feeds them. It is a story of industrial action that, if left to go on much longer, could have disastrous consequences for the Ports of Auckland…
[…]
Up until recently, cool heads and rational people sitting around negotiating tables have meant that little focus has been placed on the role that unions play in society. However, with the bare-faced mockery that the Maritime Union is making of civilised negotiations New Zealanders will soon begin to question what position unions should hold in the modern Kiwi workplace.”
In 2013, during the POAL-Maritime Union dispute, Ross admitted that he had been colluding with Ports of Auckland management to draft his proposed strike-breaking legislative amendment, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill.The Bill would have permitted scab labour to be hired to replace striking workers.
On TV3’s The Nation on 22 June 2013, Ross confirmed that he had been in talks with employers during the height of the industrial dispute between the POAL and MUNZ (Maritime Union);
.
.
The questioning from Rachel Smalley elicited revelations that Ross has discussed his Bill with Ports of Auckland, in direct response to the strike at the time;
@3.26, Smalley asked Ross,
“ Where does this Bill have it’s origins?
[…]
… is it on the wharves of the Ports of Auckland, is that where it’s origins lie? ”
Ross deflected, obviously realising that his collusion with POAL management had been uncovered. @4.00 Smalley repeated her direct questioning, not willing to let Ross off-the-hook with mealy-mouthed platitudes about “protecting low paid workers” and “freedom of choice” bullshit;
“ Have you discussed this Bill with the Ports of Auckland? ”
Caught in the vice of her softly-spoken questions, Ross admitted the obvious;
“ Oh a long time ago, ah, that was an issue that was raised…
[…]
… Oh might have been when the industrial dispute was in full swing. ”
When asked by Smalley , “What was the Port’s input into the Bill?“, Ross confirmed POAL’s involvement;
“ The Ports indicated that during a strike like every organisation that is affected by a strike they’re unable to keep their business going, in the same manner that able to before. ”
It is hardly a mystery that National and big business connive together to suppress union activity in industrial relations. For the first time, though, New Zealanders watched a Tory MP admit admit this collusion, in full public view. (For which Ross probably received a right royal bollicking from his Ministerial superiors.)
Unsurprisingly, as it became clear that Ross’s Bill was weaponised legislation,with the aim of curtailing union influence, it was defeated on it’s first Reading in November 2013.
However, National’s successor to Ross’s doomed Bill – the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2014 – passed through all stages of Parliament and made law by Assent by November 2014.
As well as the notorious “Continuity of employment – Part 6A” section (which denied guaranteed continuity of employment for workers if a small/medium business changed ownership), the new provisions attacked workers’ conditions such as meal breaks. The power to reduce or remove meal breaks was handed to the employer on a…well… plate.
Even MoBIE could not sugar-coat the “flexibility” of the so-called “reforms” and it became clear that employers could dictate when and how (if at all) employers had meal breaks;
The changes say:
- when employers can make reasonable restrictions on rest and meal breaks
- employers can specify when breaks are taken, if employees and employers cannot agree on when and how long breaks should be
- that an employer is exempt from giving breaks – when employees agree to reasonable compensation or where the employer cannot reasonably give the employee rest and meal breaks
Given National’s anti-union legislation where bosses now call the shots on meal breaks, it appears that the new work environment is not to Jamie-Lee Ross’ liking. He wants his dinner and was prepared to throw a full-blown screaming ‘tanty’ to get it.
But as ‘Mickeysavage’ pointed out on The Standard;
.
.
Let’s not forget that the legislation being debated at the time was Labour’s Family Package – a package estimated to lift an estimated 88,000 families out of poverty.
It would mean thousands of children having more food to eat; not going to school hungry; able to learn better in the classroom; able to get ahead in life, and be given a decent chance to succeed.
But National was too busy playing political games – “filibustering”. Not only were they delaying their own dinner break – they were prepared to deny impoverished families additional income. This is the depths to which National’s members of Parliament are prepared to go: politicking at the expense of the poor.
But not to panic, folks.
Jamie-Lee Ross eventually had a very nice meal.
.
.
.
References
IRD: Families Package Bill introduced
Radio NZ: Delayed lunch break brings out hangry MPs
Fairfax media: Long days and busy schedules start to get to MPs
NZ Herald: Tempers flare in Parliament as families’ package debate drags out
Youtube: Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill- Committee Stage- Part 1 – Video 53
Scoop media: Union biting the hand that feeds – Jamie Lee-Ross
Parliament: Bills Digest – Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill 2013 (Member’s Bill)
Parliament: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill
MoBIE: Amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 (March 2015)
Parliament: Employment Relations Amendment Bill [Act]
Parliament: Continuity of employment – Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act
Parliament: Employment Relations Amendment Bill [Act] – Rest and Meal Breaks
Other Blogs
The Standard: Doofus of the week – Jami Lee-Ross
Previous related blogposts
Confirmed: National welcomes low-wage economy
National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 January 2018.
.
.
= fs =
2017: Parting shots from the Right: tantrums, bloated entitlements, and low, low expectations for our Youth – rua
.
.
.
Bill English has low hopes for young New Zealanders.
.
.
Bill English – putting the peasantry in their place
When born-to-rule Tories – with a bloated sense of self-worth and entitlement – slip up and let us peasants know how they really view us – it is usually unsurprising to most on the Left.
Take, for example, Bill English’s candid admission that New Zealand’s lower wage rates were beneficial when it came to competing with Australia. On 10 April 2011, in an exchange with Guyon Espiner on TVNZ’s Q+A, English boasted of the benefits of low wages;
GUYON Can I talk about the real economy for people? They see the cost of living keep going up. They see wages really not- if not quite keeping pace with that, certainly not outstripping it much. I mean, you said at the weekend to the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum that one of our advantages over Australia was that our wages were 30% cheaper. I mean, is that an advantage now?
BILL Well, it’s a way of competing, isn’t it? I mean, if we want to grow this economy, we need the capital – more capital per worker – and we’re competing for people as well.
GUYON So it’s part of our strategy to have wages 30% below Australia?
BILL Well, they are, and we need to get on with competing for Australia. So if you take an area like tourism, we are competing with Australia. We’re trying to get Australians here instead of spending their tourist dollar in Australia.
GUYON But is it a good thing?
BILL Well, it is a good thing if we can attract the capital, and the fact is Australians- Australian companies should be looking at bringing activities to New Zealand because we are so much more competitive than most of the Australian economy.
GUYON So let’s get this straight – it’s a good thing for New Zealand that our wages are 30% below Australia?
BILL No, it’s not a good thing, but it is a fact. We want to close that gap up, and one way to close that gap up is to compete, just like our sports teams are doing. This weekend we’ve had rugby league, netball, basketball teams, and rugby teams out there competing with Australia. That’s lifting the standard. They’re closing up the gap.
GUYON But you said it was an advantage, Minister.
BILL Well, at the moment, if I go to Australia and talk to Australians, I want to put to them a positive case for investment in New Zealand, because while we are saving more, we’re not saving more fast enough to get the capital that we need to close the gap with Australia. So Australia already has 40 billion of investment in New Zealand. If we could attract more Australian companies, activities here, that would help us create the jobs and lift incomes.
Perhaps realising he had dug a hole for himself, English added at the end; “… and lift incomes“. Though of course, if “incomes lifted”, New Zealand workers would no longer be competitive with their Australian cuzzies, according to his Bizarro-world “logic”.
In 2016, at a Federated Farmers meeting in Feilding, English probably felt “at home” and sufficiently comfortable in his surroundings to let his guard down. English attacked workers again, trashing them as “hopeless“;
“A lot of the Kiwis that are meant to be available [for farm work] are pretty damned hopeless. They won’t show up. You can’t rely on them and that is one of the reasons why immigration’s a bit permissive, to fill that gap… a cohort of Kiwis who now can’t get a license because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable, you know, basically young males.”
A year later, English took a further swipe at New Zealand workers, effectively labelling them en-masse as “druggies. On 27 February 2017, he told the Parliamentary press;
“One of the hurdles these days is just passing a drug test. Under workplace safety you can’t have people on your premises under the influence of drugs and a lot of our younger people can’t pass that test.”
English’s startling (and offensive) generalisation came as a response to questions why National was allowing a flood of immigrant workers when 140,000 local workers remained unemployed.
Blaming others is de rigueur for National when facing one of their countless failures;
.
.
Some more blame-gaming;
.
.
And yet more…
.
.
Not satisfied with those digs at workers and the unemployed, English made it clear only four days before Christmas precisely what he thought of young people bettering themselves through higher education. Responding to Labour’s enactment of their election promise for one year’s free tertiary education – English lamented that “Government’s fees-free policy will ‘soak up staff out of McDonald’s’...”;
.
.
That’s right, folks. Bill English’s ambition for young New Zealanders is to get a job at McDonalds; work hard; and – stay there. No higher education for you mini-peasants!
McDonalds New Zealand realised immediatley the implications of English’s derisory comment and quickly fired out a statement countering the former-Prime Minister;
“We don’t expect to see much impact as a result of the Government’s free fees policy.”
When a major business contradicts National – the political party ostensibly representing the interests of business – you know Bill English has screwed up. Essentially his brain was in ‘neutral’ when his mouth opened and words tumbled out.
It should come as absolutely no surprise that English is so harsh in his criticism. Labour’s one year free tertiary education is only the beginning. It heralds a gradual return to what New Zealanders once enjoyed: near-free tertiary education.
It is another cog removed from the creaking neo-liberal system as it is dismantled, piece-by-rotten-piece.
Postscript
According to Wikipedia;
[Bill] English went on to study commerce at the University of Otago, where he was a resident at Selwyn College, and then completed an honours degree in English literature at Victoria University of Wellington.
After finishing his studies, English returned to Dipton and farmed for a few years. From 1987 to 1989, he worked in Wellington as a policy analyst for the New Zealand Treasury…
Bill English undertook his tertiary education prior to 1987. Student fees/loans did not start until 1992.
That means Bill English graduated with his Commerce and English Lit degrees without having to pay fees or take out massive loans. His tertiary education was (near-)free.
A job at McDonalds awaits him.
.
.
.
References
Scoop media: Guyon Espiner interviews Finance Minister, Bill English
Fairfax media: Bill English describes some Kiwis looking for work as ‘pretty damned hopeless’
NZ Herald: Unions demand Bill English apologise for describing jobseekers as ‘pretty damned hopeless’
Fairfax media: Bill English says employers are regularly telling him that Kiwis can’t pass drug tests
Twitter: Newshub – Bill English “soak up staff out of McDonalds”
Mediaworks: Government’s fees-free policy will ‘soak up staff out of McDonald’s’ – Bill English
Wikipedia: Bill English
Other Blogs
The Standard: Kiwi workers are pretty damned hopeless – says Bill English
Previous related blogposts
John Key – Practicing Deflection 101
When National is under attack – Deflect, deflect, deflect!
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #1
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 January 2018.
.
.
= fs =
2017: Parting shots from the Right: tantrums, bloated entitlements, and low, low expectations for our Youth – tahi
.
.
.
Taking personal responsibility Mike Hosking-style
.
.
Former ‘Seven Sharp‘ presenter and National Party stooge, Mike Hosking, recently gave us an illuminating insight into how seriously he takes personal responsibility.
On an episode of ‘Seven Sharp‘, on 23 August 2017, Hosking said to his co-presenter, Toni Street;
“…you can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled in the Māori electorate.”
“ The fact that anyone can vote for [the Māori Party] as a list party I automatically assumed we all knew given we have been doing this for 20 years… and it went without saying. So hopefully that clears all of that up.”
It didn’t “clear all that up”. Not by a long-shot.
After a complaint was laid with the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), the finding was scathing of Hosking. On 19 December, the BSA found;
The Authority upheld a complaint that Mr Hosking’s comments were inaccurate and misleading, and that the alleged clarification broadcast on 24 August 2017 was flippant and too general to correct the inaccurate information for viewers. Voters not enrolled on the Māori electoral roll can cast a party vote for the Māori Party, or vote for one of the 18 Māori Party candidates representing general electorates in the 2017 General Election.
In reaching its decision, the Authority recognised the high value and public interest in political speech during the election period, but emphasised the importance of ensuring audiences were accurately informed about election matters. It said Mr Hosking’s inaccurate comments were presented at a critical time, when voters required accurate information to enable them to make informed voting decisions.
“This was an important issue, particularly during the election period, and had the potential to significantly affect voters’ understanding of the Māori roll and of New ealand’s electoral system”, it said.
In considering whether orders should be made, the Authority commented on the important and influential role held by programme hosts and presenters,particularly during the democratic election process.
Note that the BSA wasn’t commenting on an opinion held by Hosking. Hosking did not say,
“…you [shouldn’t] vote for the Māori Party because X-Y-Z.”
He stated an incorrect fact;
“…you can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled in the Māori electorate.”
An example of “fake news” some might say.
Furthermore, the BSA found that Hosking’s “clarification” was;
“…flippant and too general to correct the inaccurate information for viewers“.
Quite clearly, Hosking made a mistake. Whether he genuinely believed that “you can’t vote for the Māori Party because you’re not enrolled in the Māori electorate”, or he mis-spoke, is almost irrelevant. The fact is that his statement – made on prime time television, with an audience of several hundred thousand people – was untrue. It couldn’t be any more untrue.
The BSA demanded;
… it would be appropriate for the broadcaster to publicly acknowledge the breach of the accuracy standard to its audience by way of a broadcast statement on air.The Authority directed that the statement be broadcast before the 2017 summer holiday break.
Which, by 19 December, was about four months too late. The election had been ‘done and dusted’ by the time the BSA made it’s ruling. Any damage to voters – who were unfamiliar with the intracacies of MMP – had been done.
Hosking could have “taken it on the chin”. But he didn’t, and he broke the cardinal rule for those in public life; ‘when in a hole, stop f—–g digging’!
Hosking kept digging, getting deeper and deeper in the cesspit hole he had dug for himself. Writing for the Herald on 20 December – the day following the BSA’s findings released to the public – Hosking reacted with the equanimity of a spoiled, pinot-sipping, Maserati-driving, rich brat;
My Christmas gift from the BSA, the Broadcasting Standards Authority, is I misled the nation. Sorry nation, I misled you.
I didn’t of course, but they don’t have a sense of humour, or indeed any understanding of the realities of broadcasting, like you shouldn’t take everything literally.
[…]
But the BSA was having none of it. And so sadly, once again, we have paid for a bunch of humourless earnest clipboarders to sit around pontificating and writing reports.
The irony being they decided a statement had to be made rectifying my outlandish behaviour, and it had to be done before Seven Sharp took a summer break.
They released their report yesterday – five days after the show had gone off-air. And they might have known the show had gone off air, because the final show got quite a bit of coverage for other reasons.
Then he added, in a final shot of petulance that only a ten year old could appreciate;
So what has been achieved here? Nothing. The show is finished. The election is over. I’ve quit.
He left out this bit; “…so I’m taking my ball and going home.”
Hosking wondered “why we have a BSA that busies itself with such nonsense“.
Tim Watkin, writing for The Pundit, was unimpressed;
Suck it up, buttercup. Take your medicine. Don’t whinge and claim to be misunderstood, just take responsibility. That’s the sort of advice often offered on talkback radio, yet Mike Hosking seems to have missed that memo with his ill-advised Herald column this morning on a Broadcasting Standards Authority ruling against him.
Watkin added that Hosking’s whinge in his on-going NZ Herald column was, in itself, an abuse of power;
This is dangerous stuff and a rather worrying abuse of power. When someone is sentenced by the Court in New Zealand, they don’t get a newspaper column in which to vilify the judge. And for good reason. Hosking may disagree with the ruling, but you suck it up and take your dues. That is another of the realities of broadcasting, and Hosking should realise that.
Yes, standards bodies get to pontificate; it’s their job. I know, as the digital rep on the New Zealand Media Council (until recently, the Press Council). The bodies exist to protect free speech, balance the power between the media and the audiences it serves and ensure those people with the megaphone act according to agreed ethics. As with anything we do in society, there are rules. If Hosking doesn’t like the rules, he can argue to change them. He can cry into his pinot at home.
But he doesn’t get to whine about them in print when he gets pinged.
Watkins is on the nail on every point made.
But it is illuminating that the Right – which fetishises personal responsibility to the nth degree – is the last to take personal responsibility seriously. Hosking demands personal responsibility from just about everyone else;
.
.
This is one the pitfalls of our hyper-commercialised mainstream media, when it sets up “media personalities” to pontificate to the nation on various issues. Such “media personalities” become an embarrassing liability when they get their feet firmly wedged in their oft-open mouths, having said something incredibly (a) stupid or (b) wrong or (c) both.
In this case, Hosking achieved (c): both. And worse still, his masters in the National Party must have been pulling their hair out in tufts. Hosking’s bullshit comment would have impacted badly on the Maori Party. How many votes did the Maori Party lose because of Hosking’s mis-information?
If they did lose a sizeable chunk of votes – was Hosking inadvertently responsible for the Maori Party losing their seats in Parliament? In which case, Hosking may have single-handedly denied National a fourth term in office by destroying one of their coalition partners.
“Own goal” doesn’t begin to cover Hosking’s incredible feat of self-destruction for his Party.
The role of pundits is to engage with the public and offer matters to think about and/or to inform us. On 23 August 2017, Hosking achieved neither of those admirable goals. Instead, he was sloppy. His “Maori electorate” comment was sloppy, and mis-informed viewers. His clarification was sloppy, treating viewers with thinly-disguised disdain.
And to make matters worse; it was abundantly obvious he couldn’t care less.
This should be an end to Mike Hosking’s career in broadcasting.
.
.
.
References
Broadcasting Standards Authority: Seven Sharp presenter’s comments about voting for Māori Party inaccurate and misleading, BSA finds
NZ Herald: Mike Hosking – ‘Pontificating’ Broadcasting Standards Authority humourless earnest clipboarders
Newstalk ZB: Mike’s Minute – What about consumer responsibility?
Additional
Mediaworks: BSA has no sense of humour – Mike Hosking
Mediaworks: Mike Hosking officially broke broadcasting rules with false Māori Party comments
Other Blogs
The Pundit: Mike Hosking – You do the crime, you do the time
Previous related blogposts
Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!
Mike Hosking – Minister for War Propaganda?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 31 December 2017.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 