A tale of two schools

Otahuhu College serves one of the poorest urban communities in the country. About two white kids attend, the rest of the students are various shades of brown - Pasifika, Maori, Asian, African. The local community has few services but in the manner of low-income communities the world over, is well served by alcohol outlets, loan sharks and gambling venues.
Kings College - the school next door - educates almost exclusively white students whose parents have benefited from the last 25 years of trickle up from communities like Otahuhu to the wealthy inner eastern suburbs. However, Kings obviously feels it should at least try to get out and about in the community that hosts it. Occassionally students are seen engaging in a spot of cultural tourism in the mean streets of central Otahuhu, and even more occassionally Kings hosts an event locals are invited to attend. Such an invitation has just appeared in the local rag. Look closely (click the image to zoom in). Given the information above, can you see why this might miss its presumed target audience?

A cabinet meeting, in a galaxy far far away

- We need a distraction. Who can we pick on that's not going to turn up to Parliament and make a racket? A group that doesn't have a member in the upper ranks of the Labour Party. Those Unite rabble are protesting all over the place so it has to be someone they're not interested in. And it can't be education again. The only thing worse than having rowdy bikers turning up to protest your policy is having a major policy launch and having no one turn up. Jeezus, Anne, couldn't you have rounded up some of your Maxim mates to come along and say what a great thing national standards are?
- Don't blame me, I'm just doing what I'm told.
- We spend a lot on other people's children. What about cutting some of that money?
- Too risky. We've already cut a bunch of programmes that help women and children. People are starting to notice.
- But they are expensive. We need to remind people that we're facing a crisis here.
- Yes, Bill, and maybe if you'd acted like we were facing a crisis people might believe you. And as for getting Treasury to whip up the fear for you, can't you find a credible messenger that everyone doesn't hate? Anyway, we need a whipping boy or girl no one pays much attention to and will make us look tough and fiscally resolute. Crusher, didn't you take some pops at the bludging classes when we were in Opposition?
- Yes, Sickness and Invalids beneficiaries, mostly. But everyone knows that was just politics at its cheapest and nastiest.
- Invalids. Yes. Won't see them rocking up to parliament on their motorbikes or boycotting a policy launch. Mainly because we don't have any policy.
- Invalids. Genius.
- Rodney, you're not taking cripples on taxpayer-funded trips are you?
- Only if they pay me. They don't have to come they don't want to.
- Yeah, thanks. Who sticks up for Invalids?
- Wendy Wickes. A few small sector groups.
- No one we can't paint as self-serving, then. Bill and Tariana, can you sell this?
- Sure. We're not picking on one of the most vulnerable groups in the community, we're helping them realise their potential. And we're fulfilling an election promise. The public loves it when we do that.
- Um, can invalids work? I mean, isn't the reason they're on a benefit because they can't work, or have a terminal disease?
- Technically yes, but this is about making someone else look like they have their snouts in the trough. We already have reports telling us it will be a waste of time but we get to look manly. Even Nick.
- Tariana?
- Any change aimed at providing better, sooner and more convenient services to beneficiaries has to be good for Maori, or at least a step up from what they've been given in the past.
- Terrific. Is there any cruddy policy you won't sell? Just kidding. Good work.
- What happens if there aren't any jobs? Invalids and the sick aren't exactly going to be top of anyone's list of people to employ and there's still jobs being washed out of the economy.
- Jonathan, stick to campaigning and leave the real politics to us, OK? So let's get this show on the road. We start harassing the group least able to defend themselves, it won't save any money, there's no work for them anyway, but we get to look tough. And if they turn out to protest we can say they obviously shouldn't be on a benefit. Genius.

Random thoughts

A recent trip to Wellington confirmed that many of the natural enemies of Tory governments are still hoping to work with John Key's administration to advance their interests or simply lessen the impact of what Key finally admitted on the radio last week would be a "long recession." (We wonder if he talked to Bill about this first?)
Optimists include those in the social services sector who, despite having had budgets slashed or withdrawn completely, are still reluctant to be publicly hostile. However, given the revelation that Paula Bennett released the financial details of two sole parents who dared to disagree with her to the New Zealand Herald, we're wondering if those agencies should be putting energy into meeting the Minister or running a book on who will be her likely replacement.
John Key defended her, and was quoted as saying he understood that releasing the names of the beneficiaries was within Ministry of Social Development guidelines. A couple of hours later Ms Bennett told Parliament that "apart from reading the Privacy Commission's website, she did not seek any advice before releasing detail of the two solo mothers' benefits."
Oops.
So, either she told Key it was within departmental guidelines, or Key made something up as he went along. The kindest interpretation is that this is incredibly sloppy. Others may be less kind, but we are mindful of defamation law.

There's been a bit of disquiet recently about changes to the tax code taking the limit off rebates for charitable donations. For example, well known champions of the downtrodden Auckland Grammar have set up a charity, presumably so they can fund South Auckland's finest to play in their first 15. But there is another likely beneficiary of this government largesse, and that is private hospitals. Among the beneficiaries of the charitable donations scam in the US are so-called not-for-profit hospitals. Of course they make a profit, but if they treat a couple of homeless people they keep their charitable status, pay no tax, and can funnel all the money from their paying patients into expansion. It's private, it looks charitable, and is squeezing real community hospitals out of business. (See Deer Hunting with Jesus) Watch this space...

And finally, teaser of the day from the wits at Der Spiegel. This has nothing to do with anything but it helps to know other countries suffer idiocy from their elected representatives, too. And sometimes you just need a cheap laugh.

German Health Minister Ulla Schmidt faces accusations of wasting taxpayers' money after she had her official limousine driven more than 2,000 kilometers to Spain's Costa Blanca, where she is vacationing. She says she needs the car to attend official functions there. Unfortunately, it has been stolen.

Bye for now.

McCrud

It is painful to watch a government talk so glibly about one thing - say, for example, training people to be work ready when the recession ends (if it ever does, but that's another story) - while blatantly acting to subvert its publicly stated intentions. The latest example comes from the education sector. Anne Tolley - arguably the worst Minister of Education since Merv Wellington (it's unclear if she's merely derelict in her duties or actively destructive) - has announced that, well, while we need to train people, that certainly won't be happening at a polytech near you. Funny, the impression the EMA and Business New Zealand like to convey is that we need more chippies, sparkies, plumbers, and the like, so you'd think this would be where the money goes.
Hot on the heals of this admission of failure to secure sufficient funding for the sector Ms Tolley has been charged with overseeing, comes Paula Bennett announcing that it really isn't good enough after all that young people aren't in training, but that well-known good corporate citizens McDonalds will do it for us. In case the message has been lost on you, this is privatisation of education, and not even by stealth. So we aren't training tradepeople, we're training people to manage hamburger joints.
Is this the vision John Key has for this country? No, really, is this the best this government can aspire to? Blather about expecting young people to work is a distraction. This is about the state abdicating its role in educating tomorrows workforce in the interests of the wider community.
In case this BS is ringing a bell, McDonalds pulled the same stunt in the UK, and the Blair government fell for it (proving that there are really no fundamental differences between the major parties in Western democracies any more). Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell offered up this response. We await a similar show of bravery from one of New Zealand's own.

A slap in the face for New Zealand kids

It's true: we remain in denial about the government. Like most of Wellington, we continue to keep our heads down, not so much to avoid any passing bullets but in the hope that actually things aren't as bad out there as they might seem.
But as this week has shown, that is a foolish notion, and this report from our person-on-the-spot at the opening of the refurbished children's oncology unit at Starship Hospital on May 14th illustrates why:

We were looking to John Key to speak about important issues for child health including cancer.
Instead he spoke:
· for 2 minutes about how cancer was scary – oh and it must be scary for kids too
· for 3 minutes on how he had given all the beehive mobile phones to the Starship Foundation’s old mobile phone appeal, and then didn’t have a spare when he broke his, and had to buy a new one
· for 3 minutes about how Heather Begg asked for her Damehood to be awarded early, as she was dying of cancer, and it was awarded just in time, as she died last Tuesday at the age of 84.

He did not comment on the fact that the government had not contributed to the refurbishment (it was all private donated money).
Or that on the measures of wellbeing and safety in children New Zealand are at the bottom of the OECD countries, and failed to mention any approach to address these shocking outcomes.
This was the biggest slap in the face for children given by a New Zealand Prime Minister speaking at a children’s function in recent history.

A bigger slap even than anything meted out by the famously childless Helen Clark? Oh dear. Still, it was a stressful week, and maybe he picked up the wrong set of speech notes. We certainly hope so.

Climb every...summit?

The Job Summit left us somewhat bemused and resigned that it would just be a rubber-stamping exercise for all those helpful suggestions that featured in well-timed reports from groups such as the New Zealand Institute. Dominated as it was by financial and legal interests, professional lobbyists and infrastructure-based monopolists, there wasn't going to be much discussion about how to get off the consumption/destruction treadmill. SNAFU.
But wait! In the wake of the Job Summit, Justice Minister Simon Power has announced he will host a Crime Summit. Cue theme from Dragnet! Bam! Pow!
Seriously (No, really. Mr Power is a serious young man.), the intention, according to Mr Power, is to "reach out to a wider range of individuals and groups across the sector to build consensus around the need to address the drivers of crime."
Well, that seems pretty pointless. There's little debate on the need to address the drivers of crime. The argument is about what those drivers are. Is crime driven by poverty, inequality, family background, lack of education, laziness, lack of morals, congenital defects (which may or may not include race, depending on who's talking), inadequate deterrence or some combination of the above? Certainly the evidence points to poverty and inequality being significant, but because humans are complex we find the poor are often virtuous and the rich can be theiving ratbags.
The crime issue has been driven hard by National and their hardline law-and-order mates in ACT. Which is odd, because in polls leading up to the election crime consistently scored well down on the list of things voters were concerned about. Yet whenever the opportunity arose, there was the National candidate at the local election meeting telling people that crime was the biggest problem facing the country. It's almost as if they were trying to scare us. Why? Well, looking at the raft of law and order legislation presently before the Select Committee, and recently announced plans to get private operators to run prisons, a populace scared witless is more likely to entertain hideously expensive proposals such as ACT's three strikes Bill.
What are the chances that the drivers of crime - the ones supported by evidence, not rhetoric - will be addressed? Things such as the low standard of living endured by those at the bottom of the social heap, insufficient social housing, inadequate education facilities for the neediest students, and the disproportionate lack of spending on children's health? Sadly, history suggests not much.
Let's hope Mr Power's summit proves to be more than another opportunity for the well-meaning to be ignored.
Bam! Pow! Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts.

Children's voices?

The much awaited attendance list to the Prime Minister's job summit has been released. The summit, aimed at saving us from the recession (the one most New Zealanders think has already peaked), requires that participants "will come to the table in a positive and collaborative spirit". Mark Weldon, the summit Chair, wagged the big finger a couple of weeks ago, saying lobbyists and advocacy groups would be asked to leave ideology at the door.
Given this stipulation, it would be fair to assume a mix of ideologies in order that one view did not dominate. Collaboration suggests more than one opinion at the table, after all.
So who will be at the table, in a totally non-ideological way, of course? A rough division of the list by sector (there's room for argument about some invitees) shows 21 central and local government politicians, 19 government department and quango employees (whose job it is to agree with the government of the day), 42 from banking/legal/finance/professional lobby groups (Roger Kerr and Murray Jack. No entrenched ideologies there), 32 infrastructure builders and operators, 18 from the retail/entertainment/service sector, 13 from education/training institutions, 10 tangata whenua organisations of various descriptions, 12 trade union representatives and 3 - yes, that's right - NGOs. The Auckland City Mission, Salvation Army and Disabled Person's Assembly. A further 25 are in the business of actually producing things - milk products, software, whiteware.
In other words, this looks suspiciously like a forum for the usual suspects to tell the government what they need to stay in business.
The summit blurb says the government wants concrete suggestions. Let's see: tax cuts for companies and high-earning individuals, sale of state assets, further deregulation of the labour market, compulsory Kiwisaver (compulsory saving looks like such a bad idea at the moment), ideas for channeling taxpayer's money into the sharemarket, and some more suggestions for loosening environmental controls.
Not that any of this will be ideological, of course.
And where are the other lobbyists and advocates? The ones with less access to high-powered gab-fests, who advocate for beneficiaries, the economically marginalised and children? Did their invitations get lost in the mail? Were their ideologies too risky to even be let near the door? Or does no one want any awkward questions asked?
Collaboration isn't collaboration when the only people you invite are your mates, some unionists and a few safe NGOs. Our history shows that this closed loop is bad news for children in this country. It's hard to feel positive about that.