A fascinating story by the CBC about the leading indigenous legal scholar in Canada. Basically it turns out that she has no Cree ancestry at all – her grandfather once worked in a Cree reservation, and somehow she has interpreted that as being Cree.

The story is very well researched with lots of interviews and documents scanned.

This is not a unique story in Canada:

Recently in this country, claims to Indigenous ancestry by a number of high-profile people in academia, the arts and other sectors have been questioned.

For example, a 2016 APTN story about author Joseph Boyden raised doubts about his claims to Indigenous ancestry. A 2020 CBC investigation raised similar concerns about filmmaker Michelle Latimer. In October 2021, CBC revealed that Carrie Bourassa, Canada’s leading Indigenous health scientist, appeared to be of entirely European ancestry.

Fortunately we don’t seem to have this issue in New Zealand.

A fascinating valedictory speech by Trevor Mallard. He said:

Our select committees used to lead the world, but I think they’ve become rubber stamps for Governments. Members form the legislative branch and they should take responsibility for legislation. Reform isn’t hard. They should sit more. Recesses used to be called select committee weeks. Submitters were heard—half an hour or an hour, if they had something really important to say. Committee membership should be based the same way as questions—based on the number of non-executive members the Party has, similarly to chairs.

This is in fact ACT policy, and one I also support 100%. It would make a huge difference to how select committee operates.

Submitters to committees need to know that their submissions will be treated on their merits by committees, not vetoed by a political adviser in a Minister’s office, who is often breaching privilege by merely being in position of the committee material. Ministers should trust the process. Let the committees do their work, and if, in the end, they don’t like the result, then they can change the bill at the committee stage of the House. The Government has the power to pass legislation here; it should trust the select committees to try and improve it.

Agree strongly.

And now for a left-field suggestion. I’ve long been concerned that the Reserve Bank only has one instrument—other than printing money—to wind up or cool down the economy. With so many mortgages being fixed, the cash rate tool has become a bit like using a hammer to fine-tune an EV. The results are both slow and unpredictable.

An extra tool for the Reserve Bank could be to give them discretion over, say, the last 2 percent of individuals’ KiwiSaver contributions. They could increase or decrease net pay almost immediately and, in that way, boost or tighten the economy. It would have a much more immediate effect than interest rates. Most of us would prefer to see a bit more of our incomes go into KiwiSaver than go to banks through increased mortgage rates.

I’ve seen this idea before and quite like it for the reasons Trevor outlines. It has drawbacks, but so does hiking up interest rates.

Also some other interesting parts:

Two-year-old Beth sighted Sir Robert and called out “Daddy! Daddy! There’s ‘Piggy’ Muldoon!” His response: “Ha, ha, ha! What’s your name, little girl?” Later in Copperfields, he pointed at me and said in his stage whisper, “Who’s that one McKinnon?” “That’s Mallard, Prime Minister; he beat Minogue.” “Oh, good on him. We’d better send him a bottle of whisky, hadn’t we?” Like many Muldoon promises, delivery never ensued.

Heh.

Annette went into Cabinet just before the Lange resignation. At the time, two-thirds of the Labour caucus wanted Lange to be leader, and two-thirds wanted Douglas to be finance Minister, so about a third really believed in fairies.

Could be worse – Roger as PM and David as Finance!

The situation in the UK is best summed up the the person who tweeted their son is about to move onto his 3rd PM, Fifth Chancellor and 2nd Monarch and they are just three months old!

The Conservatives are basically f**ked. Their brand is terrible as families are facing a cost of living crisis and the Government is playing non stop musical chairs.

A new leader and PM should help them close the current 30% gap in the polls, but the reality is their job will be to lose slightly less badly in 2024. Kier Starmer will be the 80th Prime Minister of the UK.

What made things so bad for Truss is she was pretty unknown to the public before the disaster of the mini budget (you can cut taxes or you can massively increase spending but you can’t do both at the same time) so her brand went toxic.

Boris already has a well established brand. It might not be particularly popular with the majority but he probably has a higher floor (and lower ceiling) than Rishi Sunak. If you accept the next election is about losing less badly, then he might be the best bet.

If they think they actually have a chance of winning in 2024, then Sunak would be best. But he might lose what remains of the base, as he has never been that popular with them.

Very sad to hear that Peter Lorimer has passed away. Peter was a “lifer” at Treasury having worked there from 1968 to 1977 and after 11 years at Dept of Labour since 1988 to a few months ago. Yes he was still working well past normal retirement age.

He was a near permanent secondee in Finance Minister’s offices and was invaluable. He was both the source of institutional knowledge but also a clear headed mind who never got flustered. He was also an incredibly decent and person and colleague.

His citation for ONZM in 2018 reads:

Mr Lorimer has played a key role in developing legislation, such as the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 and the Public Finance Act 1989. He was instrumental in supporting the passage of the Public Finance Act by providing advice and information. He has supported the ability of successive generations of officials to understand and deliver on the technical practicalities and the broader intent of the Public Finance Act. His contributions have enabled the Act to remain up-to-date and effective through changing circumstances.

Those two Acts are the bedrock of our fiscal accountability.

Earlier this year he was the Lifetime Achievement Award winner for the Public Service Commission’s Spirit of Service Awards.

Peter is a career public servant who truly embodies the spirit of service. His service has been dedicated to strengthening the institutions of constitutional and democratic government and working for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

At the heart of all Peter does is a desire to create a Public Service that delivers for all New Zealanders. His expertise is widely recognised and sought out within the Treasury, across the public service, and beyond. Peter demonstrates humility through the dedication of his time, and he lives the public service principles of political neutrality and free and frank advice every day. He has supported successive generations of officials to instil the intent of the financial management system.

Peter’s knowledge and leadership has been pivotal in the development of significant fiscal reform over more than three decades. He has been a guardian of public financial management, ensuring it remains relevant and supports New Zealand’s wellbeing, most recently, through the Canterbury Earthquakes and COVID-19 pandemic.

Peter is a strong advocate for financial stewardship, accountability, and the important role the public service plays in supporting Ministers and Parliament for the benefit of New Zealanders. His intellectual curiosity, personal integrity, and desire to help others exemplify the ethos of the public service. He is a worthy recipient of the Spirit of Service Lifetime Achievement Award.

Generations of Treasury and ministerial staffers will be mourning Peter’s passing. He was an outstanding servant of New Zealand.

Newshub reports:

Leading economist Shamubeel Eaqub believes New Zealand should “absolutely” copy the US in raising the tax brackets to inflation.

“Our political parties want to make it seem like they’re giving you tax cuts by adjusting the brackets, so it feels good,” he told Newshub at 8pm host Rebecca Wright.  

“But the reality is we are paying more taxes, our income is not going as far because of the rising cost of living. CPI is currently about 7 percent and if our index is increased by 7 percent, the average worker at $65,000 would be paying $500 less in tax.” 

National is proposing a similar policy but as a one-off change while Eaqub believes the brackets should be changed consistently. 

I agree 100%. We should not have to persuade politicians to stop our tax going up due to inflation. It should be automatic.

A principled Government would pass a law that states on 1 April every year the brackets for each tax rate get increased by the rate of inflation for the previous calendar year.

This would mean that the Government will only get an increased tax take due to the economy growing, rather than the current situation where the higher inflation goes, the more tax the Government gets.

“I think it’s actually unfair the Government gets the benefit of the rising cost of living through higher taxes. That should always be adjusted over time and what it has become is a cynical political ploy on both sides,” he said.

“They don’t want to do anything during the years between elections and they want to adjust the tax brackets when the election is near because it makes it seem like they’re giving you a great gift, but in reality, all they’re giving you back is the cost of inflation of the last three years.” 

Again absolutely agree.

This post is by PaulL, a regular commentor and occasional contributor.   It is the ninth post in a series on the financial incentives to work and the impacts of our tax and transfer system on household formation, and the second post on the “what could we do” subsection.  The index to all posts in the series can be found here.

One of the options to address abatement rates and EMTRs is to make programmes universal.  When something is universal everyone will get it, irrespective of income.  Therefore no abatement rate applies, and no disincentives to working.

A Universal Basic Income is the biggest example of this.  At its most glorious a universal basic income would give every citizen (permanent resident?) a standard amount of income, with no abatement.  Even the richest household gets it. 

In theory this would mean that we save a lot of administration costs – there is no need for complex eligibility rules, abatement rules, means and income testing rules.  There are no distortions to incentives to work.  The UBI would be set at a level where anyone on a benefit today would be no worse off.

However, there are problems.  In broad terms a UBI that leaves nobody worse off will leave a lot of people a lot better off.  It will be fantastically expensive.  A UBI that isn’t fantastically expensive will not deliver on some of the promise – it won’t be universal any more.

Almost everyone was shocked by the sentence of nine month’s home detention for Jayden Meyer who was found guilty of raping five young girls. Even worse it turned out the Crown Prosecutor didn’t even seek a jail term.

After the outcry the Solicitor-General did appeal, but because the appeal was filed late and because the original sentence was supported by the Crown Prosecutor, the appeal failed.

But reading the ruling gives you an idea of how serious the offending was, and what sort of sentence should have been imposed.

• The starting point should have been 10 years
• The end sentence after adjusting for his age and lack of criminal record should have been five years and six months

So if the Crown Prosecutor had not advocated a position totally outside sentencing guidelines, then Meyer would be in prison for 66 months. Instead he merely has home detention for nine months.

Wayne Brown released a letter to Auckland Transport:

“You appear to have been focussed on changing how Aucklanders live, using transport policy and services as a tool,” he wrote.  

“Instead, AT must seek to deeply understand how Aucklanders actually live now, how they want to live in the future, and deliver transport services that support those aspirations. Aucklanders do not always have the choice of using an e-bike, a bus or even a train but rely on the roading and carparking networks to make their life functional.”

It shouldn’t be necessary to send such a letter, but sadly it is. In the last few years the central and local government transport agencies have been on a mission to force change on people, rather than deliver services that people need and want.

AT must understand the families who are struggling to move around the region: pick-up their children, do the groceries, get home safely after-dark, and juggle other commitments. You must understand the local businesses who rely on transport connections and their needs now and in the future. 

We need a similar directive for Wellington!

In a speech yesterday, Nicola WIllis committed National to the social investment approach pioneered by Bill English.

At its core social investment is about data and science. It is about identifying the risk factors for vulnerable families, and spending money on interventions that will work. It is about spending more money now, to help turn lives about.

It is basically the opposite of what Labour does. Labour just throws money at an issue with no idea about whether it will actually work, and in many cases it doesn’t. Just look at housing waitlists, ED waiting times etc etc.

Nicola said:

The growing gap between spend and impact has eroded trust in Government programmes, and made many cynical about funding another set of political good intentions.  

There’s an unwillingness to throw good money after bad, or to lock in yet more state dependency when self-determination, mana motuhake, is what we want for each other.

New Zealanders are thirsty for a better way. 

National’s Social Investment Approach is the better way New Zealand needs to deliver for people with the greatest needs.

Intuitively, there is great appeal in the basic idea underpinning social investment – that if only we intervene earlier and more effectively for our most at risk citizens then their lives could be so much better. 

And an example:

Let me share a story of what can be achieved when we get it right.

At a recent press conference the Prime Minister highlighted research showing positive social impact from the Healthy Homes programme.  The programme was started in 2013 by the former National Government to help deliver on its goal to reduce rates of rheumatic fever in children.

Families in the programme were referred by health authorities and assisted by community-based co-ordinators to insulate, warm and dry their homes, or where that wasn’t possible to find more suitable housing.  Healthy Homes was so successful in reducing disease and hospitalisations that the Government expanded it in 2016 to a larger group of families.

A full data-led evaluation of the programme showed children of families in the programme had far fewer visits to hospital emergency rooms, their attendance at school increased, and overall their parents were receiving fewer Government benefits. The return on investment was clear and measurable: For every dollar the Government invested in the programme it reaped more than $3 in savings, with more savings expected to accrue over time.

What a success story. 

Basically social investment is about accountability for improving outcomes, not just good intentions.

National will set a small number of Better Public Service Targets to focus Government activity and effort towards measurable goals. They will be transparently and publicly reported against with Ministers held accountable for progress towards them.  

Excellent. It was abhorrent that Labour abolished them, They seem to hate accountability.

It’s worth considering their seven demands to understand what they really want.

1. Venues must be non-alcoholic. Why? Is alcohol bad and pot good? Backbenches is a show set in a pub. The audience turn up on the basis they can have a drink and a bite before and during the show. No one will turn up to watch youth wings debate in a church hall.
2. I don’t know what trained equity officers are I suspect safety provisions don’t mean earthquakes but instead someone saying something they disagree with should be deemed unsafe and removed
3. Now they want to control what the other youth reps can say? They no doubt consider opposing Maori seats in Parliament as discriminatory, so really they are saying they want to veto what others can advocate
4. This definitely means that no views which are different to their views on the Treaty can be tolerated
5. What do they mean by a code of conduct? Do they mean you can’t heckle or interrupt?
6. The speaking panel is not decided by Backbenches but by the youth wings. The four or five youth wings decide individually who will represent them. If all four presidents are women, then why should you be forced to have a male on the panel?
7. Who do they suggest should be in charge of fact checking? Them? Does this mean that if say the Green youth president claimed GMOs are unsafe, they should be halted as this is factually untrue?

It worries me that more and more young people in politics don’t seem to believe in debate, and want to place huge barriers in the way of open debate.

Creative NZ, not content with making NZ a global laughing stock, has hit back:

The Government has recognised that the MoE is better placed to provide this funding.

This highlights the positive impact that additional government investment can have on the arts.

While it’s great that a solution has been found for this one organisation, questions remain about other arts organisations and individual artists who find it difficult to mobilise or who don’t have the international pulling power to draw attention to their funding needs.

Whine, whine we want more money and it is unfair that we got mocked around the world.

The facts are their funding has gone up massively from $57 million in 2017 to $101 million last year. They should be grateful to taxpayers for the 77% increase in funding.

This is a great outcome for SGCNZ, but we’ve found some of the rhetoric over the last few weeks alarming, misleading and racist. 

Of course criticising them is racist!

Sixty-two organisations submitted proposals to our Kahikatea programme for funding from 2023 to 2025. Fifty-eight proposals were successful. We have a limited amount of money to invest, and we had to make some tough decisions. Unfortunately for Shakespeare Globe Company New Zealand (SGCNZ), their proposal wasn’t as strong as others and didn’t align with the Kahikatea programme requirements, and so they missed out this time around.

So 94% of applications were approved for funding. Yet there was no money to continue supporting getting the works of the world’s best playwright to secondary school students. What Creative NZ is saying is that they rate Shakespeare in the bottom 5%!

The Toi Uru Kahikatea investment programme that SGCNZ applied to is contestable funding – in other words, applicants compete for funding because there’s only so much money to go around.

The annual budget of Creative NZ is now over $101 million. Their suggestion that they could not afford a measly $30,000 to Shakespeare in Schools is laughable. It represents 0.03% of their annual budget.

Many people have taken exception with some of the comments made about SGCNZ’s proposal. These comments have been taken out of context; they were a small component of a thorough decision-making process.   

The comments are not out of context. They explain perfectly why Creative NZ decided not to continue funding them despite it being such a meagre amount and approving 94% of other applications.

However, we’re appalled that some of the criticism has become about race. 

The criticism has become about race because that is what Creative NZ did with the comments from their assessors. If you decline to fund Shakespeare because it doesn’t fit a decolonised New Zealand, of course it takes on a racial aspect.

We challenge the narrative that our decision was driven by reverse racism and that we are the “cultural Taliban”. Creative New Zealand’s mandate is to fund New Zealand made work within the limited resources we have.

Actions speak louder than words and to whine about limited resources when you have had a 77% increase in funding is insulting to taxpayers.

NewstalkZB reports:

Middlemore hospital has been undergoing a wait time crisis, with people being unable to receive medical care for hours after arrival.

This has become more apparent after a five page report was released that confirmed Middlemore hospital was dysfunctional, overcrowded, and unsafe. 

The problem is not just Middlemore. Only 77.2% of ED patients there get seen within six hours and nationally it is only 78.5%.

Labour came into office and effectively abolished the public health target of 95% of patients seen and treated within six hours, and long before Covid-19 they dropped away.

It is almost as bad now as when Labour were last in office. In 2008 only 70% of ED patients were seen within six hours. National got it to 95% by 2012. So in National’s first four years they took it from 70% to 95% and Labour have taken it from 95% to 78% (and still dropping).

Dr Gaurav Sharma writes:

I have resigned.

A Labour Party panel last week recommended to the party’s governing body (the New Zealand Council) that I be expelled from the Party as a member. I have also been advised that the Prime Minister and the Party plan to invoke the Waka Jumping rule 6 months before the next General Election to remove me from Parliament which will ensure there is no need for a by-election. I have sincere concerns that this underhanded move will mean people of Hamilton West will have no voice in Parliament for 6 months preceding the next General Election.

As such I have decided to resign from Parliament pre-empting Labour’s next step. This will trigger a by-election, giving the people of Hamilton an opportunity to not lose their democratic rights of having a voice in Parliament by underhanded tactics of the government and the Labour Party.

He regrets the cost of a by-election but points out:

Over the years many Labour MPs have triggered by-elections for one reason or another – in fact Labour MP David Shearer resigning and triggering a by-election is how Jacinda Ardern won the Mt Albert electorate seat in 2017.

3. Since stepping down as the Speaker Trevor Mallard has been sitting in the House with no Select Committee duties, no Bills to speak on, no constituent work. In the last 2 months he has been paid well over $25,000 to just enjoy his retirement. Soon he will be on the gravy train to be the Ambassador of NZ to Ireland. And don’t forget he is on the old Parliament contract which means he gets free business class flights for life.

4. Also a quick remind of government’s failed recent spending

– $51m spent on axed Auckland harbour cycling bridge project

$500k in office rent paid after Auckland cycle crossing canned

– $66 million on Dominion Rd Light Rail report – $44million out of this is on external consultants

– $350 million on TVNZ/RNZ merger

– $200 million on Te Pukenga botched polytech reform

Once he formally resigns, the by-election can be held as early as four weeks time – Saturday 19 November. The PM decides the timing within a certain range.

Hamilton West was won by Labour with a 6,267majority. It is the 33rd largest majority in Parliament.

On the party vote Labour got 52.6%, it was their 26th best seat. The electorate vote was 53.0%, their 25th highest.

If you look at combined party vote in 2020, the CR parties got 34.3% and the CL parties 58.3%. So normally you would expect Labour to easily hold the seat. But of course they are polling well below what they got in 2020.

A big wildcard is how much support, if any, will Sharma get and where will that come from?

This post is by PaulL, a regular commentor and occasional contributor.   It is the eighth post in a series on the financial incentives to work and the impacts of our tax and transfer system on household formation.  This post starts a new story arc – what could we do?  The index to all posts in the series can be found here.

To decide what we could do, and to compare between the various models we could use, we need a way to classify them.  I’m sure there are existing classification models, and I’ve done some (but not enough) research.  I’m going to classify in a way that matches how I think about incentives to work and income support.

Firstly, we can have financial solutions and non-financial solutions.  Financial solutions are things like benefits and abatement rates, non-financial solutions are things like work tests, case managers, or time limiting income support.

Starting with financial solutions, I think the salient attributes of the level of support are:

• The base amount of support – i.e. the dollar amount
• The abatement threshold and rate, if any
• The eligibility rules, if any

I think the combination of these three aspects covers pretty much all the supports I’ve seen. 

Stats NZ reports:

The consumers price index increased 7.2 percent annually in the September 2022 quarter, Stats NZ said today.

The 7.2 percent increase follows an annual increase of 7.3 percent in the June 2022 quarter, and an annual increase of 6.9 percent in the March 2022 quarter.

Prices are now 12.5% higher than at the last election. We have now had inflation over the 1% to 3% band since June 2021.

And this is not imported inflation. Non-tradeable inflation is at 6.6%.

Minister Hipkins has always argued against differentiation and parental choice in education as “every school should be a good school”.
The Minister has recently overseen the implementation of an Equity Index Number (EQI) system to replace the decile system. Here I have shown what an overall disaster our high school system currently is and put EQIs against the schools’ University Entrance percentage for leavers in 2021. You can look up your old school, your children’s high school or any school you like. While at it ask why the increased funding comes with no accountability at all (a huge PPTA complaint about charter Schools).

The Ministry say this about the EQI system; “The EQI is updated annually through Stats NZ Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), considers 37 variables that we know relate to achievement and is based on the circumstances of individual tamariki and rangatahi, rather than of the areas they live in.”
This could have been good as when you challenge schools on their achievement they will often say – but you don’t know our kids, their family situation, etc, …

If accurate that would mean that schools would the same EQI should be very close in terms of student outcomes. We can test that with, for example, 12 schools (with near equal EQI pairs). The higher the EQI the more students with a range of “risk factors” (Flaxmere College wins that race at EQI 564). Six pairings are as follows:

Three things to conclude.

1. I do not know what the 37 factors were supposed to explain but they SaS do not explain these achievement differences like they said they would. We MUST find out what the higher performing schools are doing and replicate it.
2. Are you supposed to know this stuff? I think – as an educators, parent and grand-parent, business person, politician, taxpayer if should be completely transparent. We have hidden this all away for far too long. When choosing a school the Ministry certainly do not advise looking at achievement data. If you are a school parent (or for any other reason) and want detailed data on your local schools email me on [email protected] Go to Board meetings, ask the hard questions, advocate for a support improvements, challenge apathy and excuse making.
3. This matters! Politicians quip – kids don’t vote, the Ministry tries to keep stark realities out of the press, media to do see education as one of their big topics. Education in NZ belongs to families – fight for the best – it is very possible.

If you are one of those people with social media – please share this one.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown has called for Watercare and council chief executive Jim Stabback to stop all work on the Government’s Three Water reforms, which he says are “doomed”.

In a letter to Watercare chairwoman Margaret Devlin he said the previous council and incoming mayor and governing body oppose the reforms.

“In more than 300 campaign events, I detected no support for it at all among Aucklanders. I promised in the election campaign to stop it,” he said in the letter.

In a statement issued just after 5pm, Brown said Auckland households are heading into an economic and fiscal storm and Watercare and Auckland Council must keep water charges and rates as low as possible.

Finally a Mayor who is voicing concern for ratepayers.

“The proposal has not been passed by Parliament and after last weekend’s local government elections throughout the country has no chance of proceeding this side of next year’s general election.

“It is not in the best interests of Watercare, its shareholder or its customers for it to spend any more money on the doomed proposal – and that is also true of Auckland Council,” said Brown.

I think Brown is right. The Government would be suicidal if it continued. But the unknown factor is whether the Labour Maori Caucus will allow the Government to backtrack.

Brown has told Devlin and Stabback whatever money they might have spent on the Government-imposed water reforms should be returned to Auckland households in the form of lower water charges and rates than would otherwise be charged.”

Excellent idea.

One News reported:

For the first time in 10 years, Creative NZ declined a funding proposal for $31,000 to go towards the Shakespeare Globe Centre NZ for 2023 – 2025.

It’s the organisation behind the Sheilah Winn Shakespeare Festival, an annual competition where high schools around the country perform scenes from the author’s plays.

Since 1991, 120,000 students have performed in the festival and more than half the secondary schools in the country currently participate.

In the funding proposal assessment document, the assessors said, “the proposal did not demonstrate the relevance to the contemporary art context of Aotearoa in this time and place and landscape.”

The assessors also added that “this genre was located within a canon of imperialism and missed the opportunity to create a living curriculum and show relevance to the contemporary art context of Aotearoa.”

We have become a laughing stock around the world as this decision has made global headlines. And even back home prominent left leaning actors have decried it:

New Zealand’s top actors Sir Sam Neill, Robyn Malcolm and Michael Hurst have slammed Creative NZ’s defunding of the Sheilah Winn Shakespeare Festival.

Malcolm called the agency “complete knobs”, Sam Neill says it made New Zealand “look bloody stupid” and Hurst said it was “beyond short-sighted, reactionary and just plain dumb”.

This follows a highly-critical letter by top University of Auckland English Emeritus Professor Michael Neill’s open letter to the agency’s chief executive saying the cut in funding of the annual school Shakespeare festival was “highly questionable” and “ill-considered”.

“With respect , if you decide to cancel the greatest writer in English, or any language come to that, you sound like a f***ing idiot. And you make NZ-Aotearoa look bloody stupid,” actor Sam Neill said.

The decision is not surprising. Wellington is infected with a woke virus, with almost every government agency obsessed with trying to prove they are decolonised. This of course includes the Government that pushes this at the governance level.

Yes Shakespeare is an English playwright. But at a time there was no British Empire, so the comments from Creative NZ are idiotic. English is an official language of New Zealand and he is regarded as the greatest English language writer and also the world’s greatest dramatist. His plays have been performed in every language in the world almost, and in fact are often redefined into a modern context.

The $30,000 of annual funding they scrapped from the School Shakespeare Festival is around 0.5% of the funding the Government has given to The Spinoff. So how about reduce their funding by 0.5% instead!

Not often I agree with Robyn Malcolm but she says:

“What complete knobs,” actress Robyn Malcolm said.

“I’ve judged the Sheila Winns at the local and National level. I’ve followed a number of kids over the years as they’ve travelled to the Globe in London as part of winning the national final and subsequently gone on to professional careers as actors and directors.

“I’ve taught Shakespeare performance in school to kids right across the social and cultural demographics.

“This is about kids, their own creative force and theatre. No matter what the school or the kids they all respond the same. They love it and they take ownership of it for themselves.”

Malcolm said the decision to defund was “beyond short sighted, reactionary and just plain dumb.”

Well said.