Monthly Archives: Jan 2015

No one tackling burgeoning student debt

Posted on by
Reply

Kia Ora

Recently I was talking about university with a friend. He had just finished his undergraduate study and was contemplating postgraduate study at University of Canterbury. Whilst we were talking I started wondering how much it had cost him to complete his BA in History. And then I thought about how students must be struggling with living costs, especially in Auckland and Christchurch to make ends meet and it was out of that, this post was born.

It is rather unusual, but certainly not wrong for me to start this post with a cold honest question:

Assuming you have been to university and did postgraduate study what did you do, and how much did it cost?

I did this at University of Canterbury, in 2004-2006 where I completed a Postgraduate Diploma of Science in Hazard Management, and more recently at Massey University in 2013-2014 where I have done papers in environmental science. As the start of the academic year at Universities approaches, I cannot help but wonder about the financial plight of University students, and in particular those doing postgraduate study despite there no longer being a government postgraduate allowance for it*.

So that you may get an idea of how things were when I was at university, I have done some costings. My cost is a fairly crude figure based on what I can remember of courses between 2000-2006. They do not include text books, additional materials. They do not include living costs. All figures are years/fees (N.Z.$).

University of Canterbury

2000 – $1,800; 2001 – $4900; 2002 – $4,200; 2003 – $3,000; 2004 – $800; 2005 – $3,200; 2006 -$3,200 = $21,100

Massey University

2013 $2,000 – ; 2014 – $3,200

When I was a full time student at the University of Canterbury, there was an expectation that your study per week would be a full 40 hours attending lectures/labs/studying or doing assignment work. There was a chart showing a suggested work pattern for a student with spikes in the hours per week around exam time and during assessments.

I was lucky enough that I was able to pay my way through undergraduate study and postgraduate study at University of Canterbury. Because I was classed as not able to work at that point, I had a benefit which paid $180p/w, of which I had $100 to spend, and saved the other $80. Not everyone would have been that lucky. From 2001, working in a supermarket, I was able to increase my income, pay the fees in full and still have a social life.

When I was a student in 2002, students marched down Riccarton Road in protest at the inability of the then Labour Government to deal with the then N.Z.$5 billion student debt. A student could take out a loan, but when they came to pay it back they were savaged by interest that drove many of them to simply leave New Zealand and not come back. A good many friends of mine reside in the U.K. and Australia with no intention of returning.

By the time Labour left office in 2008, having thoroughly failed to address the problem of the burgeoning student debt, which by then had nearly doubled to N.Z.$9 billion, tackling the debt was not a priority. Six years later, it is still not a priority, though the National-led Government of Prime Minister John Key has introduced harsher laws for tackling defaulters.

When I was doing 4th year at University, many of my fellow geography and geology students were postgraduates. Many of them were not from Christchurch, and were living in student flats. They worked where they could. That was a major challenge. In 4th year at University of Canterbury one is either starting a Masters or PhD, or they are doing Honours or a Postgraduate Diploma. In between attending their own courses, these students often took own laboratory or tutorial teaching roles, where they would either be leading the lab/tutorial session or being a teacher assistant – it paid at the time about N.Z.$13/hr. A tutorial might last about an hour or so, but labs could be up to four hours long.

Both large parties bang on about friendly to students. How friendly are they really, if after nine years Labour let student debt double, and after six years all National has done is punish those it suspects of defaulting on their loans?

You be the judge.

*National scrapped the postgraduate allowance for students a few years ago.

Nothing gained from recognising a despot

Posted on by
Reply

The recent death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was a notable event in a Kingdom where human lives are cheap, where critical speech is not tolerated and where women’s rights are frankly abysmal. The sentencing of Raif Badawi to 1,000 lashes for setting up a blogging website to criticize the state of politics in the country and the use of beheading as a punishment further underline the shocking state of human rights in the country. So, why then did Prime Minister John Key send the Governor General to be present at the funeral?

Mr Key says that New Zealand has good economic relations with Saudi Arabia and that the King has been a friend of New Zealand. He further says that it is good practice to send a dignitary to be present at the funeral of another head of state.

Amnesty International in New Zealand disagreed.

The heads of government in other nations have been forced to defend their decision to send a dignitary to the funeral of King Abdullah. In Britain, Labour Members of Parliament as well as U.K. Independence Party (U.K.I.P) spoke out against the decision of White Hall to fly the Union Jack at half mast. The Government of British Prime Minister David Cameron pointed out that Saudi Arabia had been an “ally against Islamic terror”. Prior to leaving the United States for the funeral, President Obama told C.N.N. that now was not an appropriate time to be talking human rights with Saudi Arabia.

There was nothing to be gained on New Zealand’s behalf recognizing the death of a King who styled himself as a reformer for the better, but whose human rights record is as dismal as that of any of his predecessors. In his years on the throne, King Abdullah did very little to clean up the international perception that Saudi Arabia hates women. Beheadings for crimes allegedly committed (but not necessarily proven)are as common as ever. Censorship is enforced by lashings  and some lesser crimes involve the removal of fingers.

Once upon a time New Zealand was a nation of principle, a nation with back bone and not afraid to take a position that did not please a larger nation. We did it in 1984, when we declared ourselves nuclear free. I believe Prime Minister Jim Bolger might have on at least one occasion politely told Chinese officials getting annoyed with protesters nearby that they were entitled to be there and that he was not going to do anything about it. So, what is so hard about desisting recognizing a King who did little for his country and even less for that country’s human rights record?

An alternative State of the Nation speech

Posted on by
Reply

Today Prime Minister John Key and Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little gave their State of the Nation speeches, in which they outlined their agenda’s for the year 2015. As I, a third party voter read through the coverage of the speeches, I could not help but wonder what I would have said had I been delivering a speech. Rather than give you a full blown speech, the few paragraphs of prose below are my effort at an alternative state of the nation speech:

New Zealand is a nation that has thus far weathered the climate of national security concerns very well. It is a nation that still retains much of the respect built up by decades of relatively prudent foreign policy, carefully asserting ourselves as leading nation of the South Pacific, whilst trying to retain the respect of much bigger powers such as the United States and China. It is not realistic to expect New Zealand to play a big role in the defeat of I.S.I.S. and certainly not practical, much less proper, to carry out a military role. Where New Zealand comes in use is taking a fair but firm hand helping to build up the rule of law, holding nations that flout international law to account via the U.N. and reforming the organs of that organization. It should also be careful not to give regimes undue recognition for human rights abuses, such as that which Prime Minister John Key has given the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah might have forged a working relationship with New Zealand Government’s of both Labour and National Party origin, but that does not excuse his record on human rights abuse.

New Zealand still has an environment that is relatively well regarded overseas, and still the reason for many tourists visiting. However a combination of unsustainable materialism promoted by 30 years of increasingly market oriented economics, and compounded by the slow but deliberate degradation of the very natural systems that are essential for the maintenance of life, poses the single biggest threat to New Zealand’s long term well being. In addition to the damage being done to our fresh water resources, the changes that climate change – man made or not – are causing, we also have a burgeoning problem with electronic waste. Every electronic device you use – your laptops, cellphones, MP3 players and so forth – contain toxic materials in their manufacture. It might be lithium, or it could be caesium, lead or any one of a number of other toxic agents. They don’t break down well, and when they get into water, it becomes unsafe to drink. About 99% of the 80,000 tons or so generated each year by New Zealanders throwing out our unwanted electronic devices instead of getting them repaired, ends up in the landfill. Very little goes to specialised facilities for stripping out the components. That is not good enough. Establishing a long term blue print for managing this particular type of waste should be an immediate priority for the Minstry for Environment, as should establishing a recycling depot in each of the metropolitan centres.

New Zealand is an immigrant nation. Our reputation for being a fair country has been built in large part on the tolerance of diversity and respect for other nationals coming here. Many of them come from far worse situations than that which we could contemplate, from places where genocide is happening; ruled by unstable dictatorships or fleeing a humanitarian catastrophe. We open our doors with great grace. Long may we continue to do so. Thus, it is with concern that I note our government appears to be following the lead of the Australian government of Tony Abbott, which not only makes asylum seekers, who are often the most vulnerable, unwelcome but with little regard for their well being turns the boats back at sea in complete contravention of U.N. refugee laws. Is it too much common sense to address the situation that compels them to leave their country of origin in the first place? Many of them just want somewhere peaceful and stable to live, and given that they often come from nations trying their best to stop them leaving, very often to make it out alive they have no choice but to resort to illegal methods.

We need to ensure that immigrants who come are able to do so safely, and very preferably in a legal manner. When they arrive on New Zealand’s shores they become the responsibility of the New Zealand Government agencies, and that is where – through no fault of the refugee/immigrant – a new set of issues arises. Every new immigrant coming to New Zealand needs the following:

  • A house with running water, electricity, a drive way and sewerage mains
  • At some point, they will need a car
  • A job or other means to pay their way and provide for any dependents

All of this requires resources. The house needs land, the building materials necessary and the skilled labour to assemble it, to say nothing of things like resource consents. Whilst they are not necessarily going to be buying or building a brand new home, at some point all of these resources would have been used for such a purpose. New Zealand has traffic congestion problems in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, as well as numerous other locations courtesy of our indulgence in cars. Of course we cannot blame the immigrant for problems that existed long before they arrive, but planning for the long term sustainable future as the Resource Management Act requires, becomes just that much harder. 

Will a New Zealand political party be brave enough to tackle these issues on a broad basis? I doubt it, but it needs to be done and it needs to start NOW. And that, ladies and gentlemen is my agenda for 2015.

The three F’s of Treaty of Waitangi settlements

Posted on by
Reply

Kia Ora

As we approach the anniversary of New Zealand’s foundation as a British colony it is important to understand the nature of the Treaty of Waitangi grievances, the settlement process that is underway, the reasons for their lengthy duration and the significance of Te Tiriti O Waitangi. To the untrained eye it might seem that the negotiations and the settlements are never ending, but many of the larger settlements have now been achieved and it is perhaps realistic to put an end date on the proceedings.

To the critic the money and resources being poured into completing the settlements seem wasteful, but there are very good reasons for the thoroughness. The criticisms have come from across the political and social spectrum with politicians such as Winston Peters and parties such as A.C.T. using the issue to gain leverage in election campaigns. They have generally voiced the concern that the Treaty is a gravy train and that settlements are taking too much time and resources. At the other end of the critic range, there are Maori activists, such as Titewhai Harawira and her son, former Maori and Mana Party Member of Parliament, Hone Harawira. These activists say that the settlement process is not thorough enough and that the scope of the compensation is inadequate for the grievances being claimed.

There are also three key criteria I think every settlement needs to achieve in order for the settlements and the process used to negotiate them to be proper. I call the principles the three F’s. In the public eye, assuming They are the cornerstone principles on which the entire process of settling grievances has been set.

The three F’s are:

FULL: This is twofold. First a T.o.W. settlement must have dealt with, even if it does not ultimately provide for, all aspects of a claim. That means the Waitangi Tribunal must have entered into official dialogue with the claimants regarding all aspects and reached a resolution on whether or not compensation is appropriate.

FAIR: This might seem obvious. Without this, one party or the other has a right be feeling aggrieved, which can prolong the negotiations, possibly make the actual act of reaching an agreement harder. To achieve this requirement, each settlement between the Crown and Iwi or Hapu will have presumably laid down the scope of the issues being negotiated

FINAL: When the word final is used in this context, it not only suggests that the parties agree that not only are the issues that have been discussed resolved, but that there are no other major outstanding issues to be resolved.

Since 1990, both National and Labour led Governments have made substantial inroads into the Treaty settlement process. Ngai Tahu, whose ancestral lands cover most of the South Island achieved a settlement with the National led Government of Jim Bolger. Ngati Porou, whose lands cover East Cape, Gisborne and Tuhoe whose ancestral lands include Urewera National Park have all been settled. It is realistic to believe that settlement negotiations will be wound up in the next 10-15 years.

Then perhaps Aotearoa New Zealand can move forward as one.

Social policy failure damaging New Zealand

Posted on by
Reply

It is one of the most contentious areas of Government policy. Every Government since I started paying attention to politics in 1993 has made social policy reform a priority for one reason or another. All of them have said that they want to reduce the child poverty; domestic violence and the social circumstances that lead to it, and so on. For the most part nothing has changed.We still have shocking levels of child poverty. Domestic violence figures are as high as they have ever been and the basics – food, clothing, medicine – are still as expensive as they have ever been.

As a person who lost his job in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake on 22 February 2011, and then spent 2.5 years on the unemployment benefit, I am rather well qualified to comment on the failings of the social welfare system in New Zealand. I made a few observations in that time:

  • The governing legislation is totally inflexible
  • Training for M.S.D. department staff is not adequate
  • The allowances and benefits are weighted wrongly – I was paid more per week to sit on my backside on the unemployment benefit, than to study at Vision College
  • The benefits and allowances are wholly inadequate
  • Poor and sometimes pedantic communication – stating the brazenly obvious, or only telling a person their benefit has been cut when they come to complain about a lack of money

I don’t feel nearly so sorry for the politicians and the managers in higher levels of the Ministry of Social Development whose (mis)management of the Ministry and its umbrella agencies – Work and Income, Child Youth and Family, Study Link, and so forth – leads to inept implementation of something that needs (in my honest opinion)a ground-up review.

Very sadly – although no one will admit it – Government policy was probably an aggravating factor in the Ashburton Work and Income murders. A horrible thing to say, and perhaps before time, but given the coldness of this government to anyone who is disadvantaged, unemployed, disabled or needing assistance getting out of a personal situation that may or may not have been of their making, there is a degree of truth in this.

But it is not just National that has poorly managed their opportunity to do some meaningful good for N.Z. social welfare. Labour had nine years in which to effect a turn around like the National governments preceding them and succeeding them, failed. There were a host of child abuse cases in that time which shocked the nation, such as Lillybing and led to a clamour for action. One of the options could have been to require that the right to remain silent in the case of child abuse be suspended where the caregiver/s are suspects in a case. Another could have been to compulsorily assign a case worker to at risk families.

The situation is like a compost heap at risk of self combustion. Peoples problems are (in place of organic matter)slowly fermenting, and gathering heat as they do. What is the temperature at which self combustion occurs and where might it happen? Nobody except the gunman could have reasonably seen the Ashburton murders coming.

Unless the flaws in N.Z. social welfare law are addressed, another compost heap is going to ignite, causing further wholly unnecessary distress and politicking. The Ashburton murders were the first in a government office in New Zealand.

I sincerely hope they are the last.