Friday, November 28, 2014

Five Reasons Why John Key Should Resign

There are many reasons why the Prime Minister John Key should resign, but here are five:
  1. It is unbecoming and unethical for our Head of Government to continue to have a personal and ongoing relationship (txt conversations) with a discredited 'shock jock' attack blogger who calls his blog 'Well I'll Be Fucked' (English translation).
  2. It is untenable that our Prime Minister accepts the word of a discredited blogger over that of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in suggesting that parts of her official report are contestable.
  3. Deliberately misleading the House is a serious offense and the Prime Minister has been caught out previously for this. His denial that he had any recent contact with Cameron Slater was patently dishonest. It also appears that he only made the subsequent correction when Cameron Slater himself revealed that he had been communicating with him.
  4. The Prime Minister is the Minister directly responsible for his own office and the SIS and to continually deny his role in overseeing the culture and activities of both is unacceptable. Jason Ede was working under his direction and the culture of using public officials to discredit the opposition is unethical and occurred under his leadership. 
  5. Key has led a Government dogged by unethical behaviour and conflicts of interest, resulting in many Ministers resigning. Under his Government there has been a breakdown of democratic process and a manipulation of government resources for political advantage. This has caused the likes of Dame Anne Salmond to voice public concern about the state of our democracy.
We expect our Prime Minister to use his office and authority in the best interests of all New Zealanders. We have the expectation that our Prime Minister is honest and transparent about his intentions and activities. We rely on our Prime Minister to be fair and impartial in his dealings with New Zealanders at all levels and sectors of our society. We expect our Prime Minister to operate in a manner that is respectful of the office he has been elected to and that his conduct is always honorable and ethical.

John Key has failed to meet the basic expectations we have of his office, he should resign!

Thursday, November 27, 2014

John Key's Immoral Governance

I was in Wellington last weekend, alternating between spending time with my two student children and attending our Green Party executive meeting. Being with intellectually engaged and compassionate people was a useful foil to the depressing events that hit me over the past few days.

The first event was a discovery that I made by chance during a debate with some rightwing climate change deniers. In response to their claims that the 97% of scientists who are in agreement about the human influence of climate change are just part of a huge conspiracy for their own personal gain, I looked at the potential influence of oil and gas companies. I discovered that in a list of companies with the largest revenue in the world, oil and gas fill 6 of the top 10 places (17 oil and gas companies in the top 40). There are also five automative companies in the top 40 and each of these companies earn hundreds of billions every year. The smallest of these companies has an income about 50% greater than the New Zealand Government. No wonder most Governments struggle to cut carbon emissions and those few questioning the science have strong financial backing.

Considering the immensity of the climate change issue, and the urgency with which we need to act, unless we can counter the considerable power of the oil and gas industry little will be achieved. Our Government has opened its arms to the oil and gas industry and has given up much of our land and territorial seas to exploration, short term gain is more important than the health of the planet. There will be no attempt to restrict the recovery of fossil fuels under a John Key led Government.

The next event was catching a late showing on TV of Inside Job, the award winning 2010 documentary narrated by Matt Damon that described the systemic corruption of the United States by the financial services industry that led to the Great Recession. The blatant greed and callous disinterest in the suffering caused to ordinary people by those leading the investment companies and banks was horrific. Of course most were bailed out and those behind the corruption and inevitable collapse of the financial sector are still in leadership roles and many have been employed by successive US Presidents, including Obama.

What struck me again when watching Inside Job was that our own Prime Minister came from that culture (Merrill Lynch) and while he wasn't working for them during the crucial years before the recession, he was still involved in an industry driven by short term thinking and instant profits. Compassion has no part in this industry where only the fittest survive and those surplus to requirements are disposed of quickly. Key thrived in this environment and his reputation for a having relaxed manner despite a ruthless approach to his work caused him to be labeled the 'Smiling Assassin'. Key's calculating, almost mercenary approach to his leadership has a history and he has brought these skills to his role of Prime Minister.

Key has generally managed to distance himself publicly from much of the grubby activities that have been going on within his Government but it is obvious that his modus operandi from his Merrill Lynch days is still in operation. It is also clear that the command centre for National's dirty tactics is the PM's own office and, despite his denials, Key is probably orchestrating a good deal of it himself.

Since the September election opposition parties have had to cut staff numbers because the Government of the day sets the budget for their resourcing and there has been no funding increase since 2007. Over the same period the vote within the budget for the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet has increased over 100%.

For the 2008/9 financial year the overview of the vote for the PM's Office and Cabinet included $8.5 million for the likes of free and frank advice, inter-departmental coordination and policy development and domestic and external security. For the 2013/14 financial year the vote for the PM's Office and Cabinet has been broken up into new sections, presumably to allow the increases to be less obvious. The free and frank advice, inter-departmental coordination and policy development gets $4.17 million and secretariat services to the cabinet, cabinet committees and the executive council gets $4.47 million. What has increased most dramatically is an area of the vote that was modestly funded before and now gets $8.76 million. This money goes to what is described as:
"leadership, advice, coordination around national security matters, leading collaboration within the New Zealand intelligence community, managing the National Cyber Policy Office and providing assessments to support national security."

Twice as much is being spent on supporting this Government's intelligence and spying capacity than policy development and governance of the various departments and ministries that provide support and services for New Zealanders. John Key is not motivated by improving the lives of less fortunate, but he does appear to enjoy the adrenalin rush of attack politics and scoring points over the opposition. His braying and gloating performances in Parliament, as he ends many of his answers with personal attacks, is something he actually appears to enjoy. It is also clear that his personality is more suited to the dirty politics culture of attack bloggers than the dignity and diplomacy expected of a Prime Minister. Those who Key corresponds with personally via txts are not New Zealand's wise heads like historian Dame Anne Salmond or award winning scientist, Dr Mike Joy, but Cameron Slater.

In John Key we have a Prime Minister who is spending more time and money on controlling the opposition to his ethically challenged Government than on developing good policy for the benefit all New Zealanders. For him, being remembered for changing the design of our flag means more than saving our environment and lifting 25% of our children out of poverty. Attack bloggers and corporate lobbyists always have his ear and the plight of those struggling to find a home while working on unlivable wages do not. We have a Prime Minister who is driven by maintaining power and control, by any means, rather than service and compassion.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

School Deciles, Another crisis for Parata mess with?

The school decile system came about as a way of creating a level playing field for school funding across different school communities. It was accepted that Government funding, through the operations grant, never actually covers all operational costs. Donations and fundraising activities in each school community were still necessary to make up a shortfall. Obviously affluent communities are more able to raise those extra funds and poorer communities struggle and this needed to be addressed.

The decile rating of a school is based on data from the national census and looks at household incomes, occupations, household crowding, educational qualifications and those receiving income support. Despite some inaccuracies that occur, like the percentage of students who may come from outside the school area, the system has been broadly effective at identifying the wealth of a school community. Despite decile 1 schools getting a much larger amount of funding, however, research has shown that higher decile schools still receive around $1,000 a year more per student after donations and fundraising is included.

The decile rating was normally reviewed every five years but because of the Christchurch earthquake the 2011 census was delayed by a couple of years. The seven year wait for the decile rating review has meant that many more schools experienced a decile change than usual and some of the funding drops have been substantial.

The obvious angst experienced by those schools experiencing a funding cut, and some of the anomalies exposed, has provided the Minister of Education a great opportunity to propose a change. A review of the decile system isn't unreasonable, especially when it has been inappropriately used by many as an indication of the quality of the school. Currently in Southland some of our highest decile schools are under commissioners for issues around management and governance and many of our lower decile schools have excellent ERO reviews. The socio-economic status of a school should not be a judgement on the management of a school or quality of teaching.

I am worried that Hekia Parata may use concerns about the decile system to make changes that may actually deliver worse outcomess. No matter how much some schools may suffer when their decile rating moves, the system does attempt to address inequity in a relatively fair and independent manner. As stated earlier, inequity is only partially addressed through the decile system and could actually be more effective if even more money was provided to low decile schools because, under current funding provisions, high decile schools are still better off. I believe the decile funding system should be retained, but applied in such a way that the classifications of schools couldn't be misconstrued as a judgement of quality.

The other avenue where funding should be directed is to the needs of individual children. I recently taught at a Decile 3 school that had become a magnet for children with disabilities and also had a good number of immigrant children for whom english was a second language. Decile ranking doesn't really take into account elements not related to socio-economic backgrounds. Special Education support funding has been cut back and the threshold for accessing ORS funding is now so high that many children with very high needs struggle to get specialist support and schools with high numbers of children just below the threshold have to work very hard to accommodate them. Schools in wealthy communities and private schools also capture a disproportionate amount of special education funding and students in low decile schools, who are often more deserving, miss out.

Hekia Parata's track record in addressing real needs within the education system makes worrying reading: attempting to close down schools catering for special needs, her government's blatant support for private schools and privately managed Charter Schools and attempting to save money by reducing teacher numbers.

Parata has also suggested using National Standards data as a means for targeting funding and it will be interesting to see how she will choose to do this. The most logical way of doing this would be to give the schools with the lowest achievement greater resources, but this could be counter productive if recording lower achievement provided financial benefits. The most likely scenario would be to employ commissioners, or such like, to intervene in schools deemed 'under-performing' which fits the bullying style of governance we have come to expect.

There is also the spectre of Parata's IES policy which will see clusters of schools operating under the leadership of a Ministry appointed Executive Principal. The potential to change the funding model through this may actually be her plan. There may be financial incentives for low decile schools to join clusters and therefore erode the current deadlock where most primary schools are refusing to engage.

After six years under a National Government, one thing is certain, its initiatives are unlikely to meet the needs of the most deserving schools and children.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Who's left to blame?

National Ministers had three main excuses for poor outcomes and extensive borrowing: the Labour Government's prior mismanagement, the global economic crisis and the Christchurch earthquake. All of these excuses have now become historical, it is six years since Labour was in office, the economic crisis was well and truly over for New Zealand three years ago (we never suffered as much as most in the OECD) and the earthquake can no longer be counted as a deficit when the rebuild is a large part of our economic recovery. From now on the buck must stop with the current Government.

Over the last six years the National Government has had some clear priorities where they have made substantial investments:
The Government's motorway projects generally come out poorly in cost benefit analysis, the tax cuts to the wealthy did not result in any trickle down but contributed to higher spending in luxury items and corporate welfare often props up failing companies. The Government has also invested heavily into supporting the oil and gas industry, promoting coal mining and subsidising carbon emissions through the dismantled ETS.

National Governments are ideologically driven to shrink the size of government and shift as much as possible to private providers so that solutions to many social problems are left to market forces (with reduced regulation). National's ideology has been so dominant that they have been prepared to ignore evidence and advice and manipulate or hide data to progress their agenda. The cuts to the state sector have also reduced the quality of advice and resulted in bullying cultures

I believe that the National Party only really planned to be a two term Government and now that they have been elected for a further three years they will have to face the consequences of past decisions. Their chickens are coming home to roost and fudging data can only hide the physical realities of poor policy for so long. Since re-election the stress of the underfunding of core services is being revealed:
  • Our Universities have dropped in world rankings as government funding per student has dropped in real terms.
  • Our DHBs have reached crisis point and are having to cut basic services. Even the briefing to the incoming Minister of Health makes serious recommendations: '...unless the health and disability system changes its approach, government will need to spend a much higher percentage of GDP on health services (which will crowd out other government activity or consumption), or reduce access to services, or require patients to pay a greater share of costs."
  • The lack of investment in building lower cost housing has culminated in a severe shortage of social housing. The poor quality of many rentals and future housing demand (113,800 houses needed in next 15 years) needs urgent attention. There are around 43,000 people currently waiting to be properly housed and the average waiting time for applicants has grown to over three years under this Government.
  • The majority of New Zealanders have seen their incomes stagnate over recent years and at $28,500 our median income has not kept up with the increasing costs of housing, electricity and food. The growing inequality within our society is seen as CEO's continue to get massive salary increases (ANZ's CEO now earns more in a day than many New Zealanders can earn in a year).
  • Government Debt continues to climb and all the positive economic predictions can't hide the fact that the Government is continuing to spend far more than it earns (around $15 billion a year). 

John Key's claim of making "a brighter future for all New Zealanders" is looking increasingly hollow as his Government's spending and policy priorities have delivered little for most of us. There is no one else left to blame for a lack of vision, a failing ideology and poor quality investments.

The buck now stops with you, John!

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Preventive or Preventing Health Care?

The front page article in the Southland Times today hit me at a personal level. Some years ago I became aware that I was passing blood and after a visit to my GP, was referred for an exploratory colonoscopy. As it turned out there was nothing seriously wrong with me but it was hugely reassuring that I could cross off bowel cancer (especially as I was in the danger zone of over 50).

The Southland region has the highest rate of bowel cancer in New Zealand, with New Zealand having one of the highest rates in the world. Despite these horrifying statistics a third of all GP referrals for colonoscopies in Southland have been recently rejected by the DHB.  At a public meeting a GP voiced his concern, "I send a patient, more than one, they are over 70, losing weight, blood in stool, and they still can't get a colonoscopy."

If I had had presented with my previous symptoms in today's environment it is unlikely that I would have been granted an exploratory procedure and would have had to go private to gain piece of mind. It must be hugely worrying for patients whose symptoms are concerning enough for their GP to request a colonoscopy, but then have the procedure refused. If a patient had limited financial means there would be no other way of getting support unless their health substantially deteriorated and by that stage the opportunity for early treatment would be lost. More than 100 New Zealanders die from bowel cancer every month and if detected early there is a 75% chance of successful treatment.

This Government is very skilled at manipulating data and love to talk up the fact that waiting times for medical procedures are dropping. What isn't widely understood is that huge numbers are removed from waiting lists for arbitrary reasons to create the impression of quicker turnover times. For colonoscopies in Southland, removing a third of referred patients from the list will not improve health outcomes but creates an impression of improved efficiency.

For a Government to knowingly manipulate data and deny New Zealanders timely treatment isn't acceptable from health or economic perspectives. It is far less expensive to treat the early stages of cancer than deal with a patient who has a terminal condition. Preventive health gives a far greater return on investment and cutting funding from this area of the health budget is short sighted and will have huge economic ramifications in the end.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

National's Conservation Dance, The Blue Green Spin

National’s top five conservation achievements are part of a new dance called the Blue Green Spin, one step forward, a quick twirl and three steps back:

1) National has created seven new marine reserves and we now have 9.5% of our territorial seas brought into reserves and sanctuaries (one step forward). Quick twirl. The Government has opened up much of our territorial waters for oil exploration, including our Maui's Dolphin sanctuary. Michael Field's book The Catch reveals the need to properly manage the fishing industry to stop the human and environmental exploitation currently occurring (three steps back). 

2) 2500 km of a national cycleway have been completed and $100 million proposed to accelerate cycling in urban areas (one step forward). Quick twirl. The NZTA has only a small handful of people employed to support cycling. The Government is continuing with their $13 billion motorway development and the amount being spent to support public transport is a tiny fraction of the transport budget. We are well behind Europe with our support of cycling in our urban areas and even in the car dominated US many cities have introduced safe cycling routes (three steps back).

3) Spending $30 million on the use of 1080 to control pests in over a million hectares of conservation land (one step forward). Quick twirl. It is just a pity that the ongoing work of the Department of Conservation has been greatly limited by huge budget cuts. The $30 million spent on pest control should be regarded in context of around $70 million cut from DoCs budget since 2008 and the hundreds of DoC employees losing their jobs. Simon Bridges has been enthusiastically opening up huge conservation areas for mining exploration without any appreciation of the areas involved (three steps back).

4) The Government is spending around $6.5 million a year over the next four years to support 'community led' conservation around New Zealand (one step forward). Quick twirl. New Zealand has one of the highest levels of volunteering in the world but there is growing concern that the Government is relying too much on good will and dedicated people who put the environment and the welfare of others before themselves. The founder of KidsCan, Julie Chapman, has voiced concern that she was having to do what the Government should be doing. The $27 million to be spent encouraging volunteers to do conservation work will be replacing, to a large extent, the $70 million cut from employing properly trained people. Those volunteering feel passionate about what they do and will be working long hours doing unpaid work at what can be a personal cost to themselves (three steps back).

5) $350 million being spent on cleaning up waterways and $100 million to retire land next to important waterways (one step forward). Quick twirl. Fresh water quality is actually declining according to most scientists and more is being spent on expanding dairy farming, the leading cause of much of our water pollution. We are growing our dairy herds faster than we can manage the environmental effects. Considering the average dairy farm is now worth around $10 million, $100 million won't retire a lot of farmland (three steps back).

The Blue Green Spin is a backwards moving dance that causes all those involved to run out of space and eventually have their backs against the wall. It looks attractive for a time but quickly ends when there is no more room for movement. There is no recovery when our Maui's Dolphins become extinct, important conservation land is permanently damaged through mining and our native fish are lost forever. It costs much less to say no to environmentally damaging industries than spend huge amounts to try and repair the resulting damage afterwards. I, for one, don't want to dance to this National Government's tune. 

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

John Key's Housing Legacy

"I think that if we are going to reform the world, and make it a better place to live in, the way to do it is not with talk about relationships of a political nature, which are inevitably dualistic, full of subjects and objects and their relationship to one another; or with programs full of things for other people to do. I think that kind of approach starts at an end and presumes the end is the beginning. Programs of a political nature are important end products of social quality that can be effective only if the underlying structure of social values is right."

Robert Maynard Pirsig, Zen and  the art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974)

If we applied Pirsig's approach to housing policy in New Zealand there would be an ongoing focus on lifting the quality of life for all New Zealanders, with a strong focus on equity. This is the expectation in much of Europe where quality housing is seen as an essential element in the quality of life for citizens. The success of each succeeding generation is dependent on the environment that they are brought up in and housing is a large factor in this. Children spend much of their important formative years in their home and the health of our working population is dependent on the conditions they live in. There is social and economic value in good housing and where there is a continuous cycle of improvement.

Michael Joseph Savage understood the wider benefits of good housing and used his Christian values and 'Applied Christianity' to progress change. Savage and his Government were determined to address inequity and lift many New Zealanders out of fairly dire living conditions. The state houses of the 30s and 40s were designed and built to standards that were considered high quality at the time and the fact that these same houses still make up over 40% of current HousingNZ stock (70 years later) is testimony to their construction and design. These state houses have become a New Zealand icon and became Savage's enduring legacy.

John Key and his Government have been aware of the issues around housing ever since they first came to power in 2008 and the Department of Building and Housing identified and described many of the key housing issues in their 2009/10 report. They effectively sat on the problem for six years until the issue could no longer be ignored. Overcrowding, ill health and homelessness have now developed into a highly visible crisis. The Salvation Army estimates that 1 in every 120 New Zealanders is now effectively homeless (35,800 people) and around 50% of those who rent claim the condition of their house negatively effects their health. Housing New Zealand has 5,600 people on waiting lists who are in desperate need of support (at risk) or have a serious housing need. This is appalling for a resource rich, first world country with a relatively small population.

New Zealand's housing market is is not driven by social values but in producing a good return on investment. For property developers and investors social housing is not a good source of captital gain. The low to average income earner does not have a lot of disposable income and renting to low income families is only really profitable if the houses being rented have relatively low value (in an overheated market) and tenants can tap into the accommodation supplement. There is no incentive for bringing a poor quality rental up to a reasonable standard if there is no financial advantage or requirement to do so. The Government currently spends over $2 billion a year to subsidise landlords and there is no expectation that the houses provided have to meet minimum standards. There are very few new houses currently being built to meet the the demand for low cost housing and the general standard of cheaper privately owned rentals is probably dropping.

The Government's initial solutions were to blame councils for not making more land available to developers and to claim that over regulation was restricting the building of low cost housing. Key and his Ministers ignored the fact that in many situations land was available and land banking and nimbyism was common. Past reductions in building regulations has had disastrous consequences, so any changes to the RMA and consenting processes need to be carefully considered to avoid a repeat of past deregulations.

Rather than lead the provision of social housing to ensure a high level of urgency and assurance of quality, the Government is taking the opposite approach by devolving responsibility of social housing to private interests and NGOs. The Salvation Army and other providers of social support are unlikely to have the finances to purchase or build large numbers of social housing and even if they did buy existing state houses at a discounted price, the maintenance and upkeep will be a financial drain. All the government will be doing will be to shift the responsibility of existing state provision to other providers with more limited means and it won't increase the overall numbers of available houses.

While there is money to be made servicing the needs of the wealthy and retirees, there is little money to made from social housing. If a developer did build housing for low income earners it is unlikely that quality would be a large consideration in their construction. I can imagine a 'build them cheap and pack them in' approach will be used. The Hobsonville Point development was initially going to include 100 lower cost homes amongst the 3,000 planned, but this was reduced to a mere 17. Integrating social housing into new developments will be problematic if we are going to rely on private developers and market forces.

If John Key completes his third term as Prime Minister in 2017 his legacy will probably be 9 years of growing housing inequity and a steady decline of the quality and numbers of low cost and social housing. Given current trends it is likely that over 40,000 people will be homeless by then and fewer New Zealanders will own their own home. Changing our flag appears to be Key's main priority and exposes his lack of compassion and the shallowness of his vision.