Archive for October, 2010

Review of Special Education

October 20th, 2010

There is something missing from Rodney Hide’s announcement today about the review of Special Education. The details. What has been released is a summary of submissions (which will be interesting reading) and some PR fluff. There is no real indication of how the laudable goals that are mentioned are actually going to be achieved.

There are some good initiatives in this report. The goal itself of more inclusive schools, more support for children coming out of early childhood education, enhanced teacher training, better coordination of resources. But the language is vague, and the absence of a proper report or clear set of recommendations is frustrating at best, and deliberate at worst.

One thing is for sure- there is no sign of any additional resources. There was an attempt to dress up money announced two years ago, but the reality is that for the changes that are proposed (80% of schools to be fully inclusive by 2014) there is serious work to be done. Rodney Hide says its a change of attitude that is needed not more resources. For some schools there may well be some need to alter their approach, but it is not going to make the difference for many students. That will require additional resources.

Because the release today was so light it is impossible to know even what the Minister means by fully inclusive or how it will be measured. Hopefully it means parents being able to make a real choice about sending their child to a local school.

We are now going to have to go through the OIA process to get the Cabinet papers and other documentation that lie behind this announcement to actually see the details. Its a silly waste of time for everyone concerned. But we will keep on at this.

Review of Special Education

October 20th, 2010

Since we have discussed the review, and its delayed release, several times on this blog, it is worth noting that it will be released by Rodney Hide at 1pm today. I will write a response later, but watch out for any changes to the way services are structured (eg use of special schools as resource centres) and how funding is organised.

PM’s Literary Awards- Without a PM again

October 18th, 2010

Just got back from the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards.  These awards were created a few years ago to acknowledge senior New Zealand writers.  They are prestigious awards that recongise New Zealand writers for their careers, and have a significant monetary component to go with the honour.

This year’s recipients were James McNeish (non-fiction), Cilla McQueen (poetry) and my dear friend Joy Cowley (fiction).  All thoroughly deserved.  It was interesting to hear McNeish say it was his first ever award.  Hard to believe for a writer of such talent.   Also great to have the Michael King Fellowship award formally handed over (already announced) to Kate De Goldi.  Kate is using the fellowship to write about the incredible work of Susan Price from Wellington of giving books to children from her vast children’s book collection.

These awards are clearly very special for those who receive them, and their families and friends.  It is therefore incredibly disappointing that for the second year running the PM was a no-show.  Worse still this year there was not even a message noting his apology or absence.  I know he is a busy man, but these awards are in his name, and part of the reason they were created was to elevate New Zealand writing to a higher level in the public consciousness.

Anyway, a huge congratulations to all the winners.  Here is one of Cilla’s poems, no doubt written from her home in Bluff.

FOVEAUX EXPRESS

Diesel sounds aromatic
magenta, oxblood,
mineral smooth
any how as boronia

swivel that levers
a shoepolish lid,
key curls oily metal.
Poetry takes you apart,

puts you back different
as this day’s passage
on shapeshifting water,
one to another island

swift as the stroke
of a pen the toothed strait
on the whale’s path
chewed through, islets

scattered between,
text in motion
gimballed on muscling
swells, word-ware, cargo.

New Thinking- Economy

October 18th, 2010

A feature of  Labour conferences for the last three or four years have been the new thinking workshops.   These began under Phil Twyford’s time as Policy Council secretary.  They are a chance to discuss in-depth new and challenging policy ideas, with outside experts, who often have ideas that are not comfortable for many in the Labour Party.  They are now the most anticipated part of conference.  Two journalists noted to me that the National Party just don’t do this kind of thing.  I took that to mean the workshops and the thinking!

This year there were two new thinking sessions on the economy. The first was with Ganesh Nana, John Whalley and Selwyn Pallet.  The second had Bernard Hickey.  I was at the first, and heard many reports from the second.  The distinguishing feature of them both was that the lesson of the global financial crisis and of our sluggish recovery is that we can not keep doing what we have always done if we want a more productive economy and better standard of living.  To a person the presenters have recognised that the policies of the past need to be changed, and for some like Bernard that is a huge shift in thinking.

I think this is the bit that David Farrar and other commentators on the right do not get about Labour’s new economic policy.  The world is responding to the economic crisis by thinking again, challenging the assumptions and the orthodoxy.  That is also what Labour is doing.

Not everything that the speakers at these workshops said will become Labour policy, but the idea as  noted at the first workshop that TINA (There is No Alternative) ,the mantra of the neo-liberal thinking of the 80s/90s, has been replaced by TARA (There are Real Alternatives) is exactly where we are going.

As John Armstrong notes in the NZ Herald today Labour is setting the ground for a real economic debate in 2011.  From Labour you have already heard about monetary policy, taxation and overseas investment, and there will be more to come on these issues as well as savings and job creation.   From National, what will we see? If its more of the same old, visionless thinking then that, while being bad for New Zealand, will give voters a stark choice in 2011.

Why select committees are worth it

October 13th, 2010

oday I had a real privilege at select committee. We were hearing submissions on the government’s bill to, among other things, merge Archives NZ and the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs. Now, sometimes hearing submissions, while great for the democratic process, can be tough going. But not today. We heard from some of foremost former public servants; a former Chief Archivist, a former Parliamentary Librarian, plus people who care about Archives and Library and give their time to support them.Their submissions were coherent, passionate, challenging and had practical suggestions for changes to a Bill that they all oppose in principle. Have a listen to the piece from Checkpoint today (at 18.54)

The key message we got was that the Bill and the proposed structure that will see the Chief Archivist and National Librarian as third tier managers at DIA will undermine the indepdendence of these key constitutional and democratic institutions. This is not just opinion. Archives was part of DIA in the 1990s, and the Chief Archivist at that time told us today that he had little influence over decisions and wasted a huge amount of time trying to be heard internally.

There is more to come on this issue next week, but the government has just plain got this one wrong. There is no justification for the change in terms of savings, or improved quality of service. The only reason seems to be to reduce the number of government agencies. The problem is these are agencies that are doing a good job and are well supported in their community.




Authorised by Grant Robertson,
160 Willis St, Wellington.

Paid for by Labour Party members and supporters.