Stuff reports:

Stuff is planning to sell or close some of its smaller community and rural papers.

Chief executive Sinead Boucher said 28 mastheads would be affected as part of Stuff’s strategy to grow its digital business.

She said the company was still working through plans for each title and briefings with staff would be held over coming weeks.

“We appreciate that this process creates a level of uncertainty for some people – and we will move as quickly as possible to provide them with clarity,” Boucher said.

About 60 staff could be affected.

Sad for those staff and sad for the communities affected. I no longer read the daily newspapers but I do like reading community newspapers. Was disappointed (but not surprised) when The Wellingtonian closed last year.

Been sent a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister:

With due respect to the Prime Minister of New Zealand and all concerned;

I am a 65 year old grandmother and great grandmother and this is the first time in my life I have ever written to either the media or the NZ government and I do so with extreme concern and dismay. 

Over my lifetime I have watched both my children and grandchildren struggle to receive an education delivered the way they need to learn.. The same opportunity that is given to the 80% of other New Zealand children .My grandchildren are part of the 20% of New Zealanders who have some form of disability, in their case this relates to their learning. They are wired differently and in the minority, but they do matter. In the past, two of the oldest grandchildren with similar challenges, passed through their local school with very poor social and educational outcomes, due to a system which failed them miserably with abysmal special needs support.Today, both are struggling with their mental health and ability to gain work, at a cost to the taxpayer. It is obvious one size does not fit all. 

These children and young people have the right to succeed in life.Two of my younger grandchildren were given this opportunity by the Villa Education Trust. Over the last four years.we watched in awe at the progress these young people made while at South Auckland Middle School. They started SAMS insecure, lacking in confidence in themselves and their ability. Failing miserably educationally and socially, and falling through the cracks at their previous schools, they transformed into leaders at SAMS, achieving regularly at Merit and Excellence levels. They are now creative, innovative positive role models.

Most importantly, they have gained a high level of self belief and now have the confidence to base their future endeavours upon. Having now transitioned into Senior colleges, SAMS has equipped and prepared them to reach their potential and positioned them to become productive members of our community.One has built their own blossoming business at fifteen and a half; and recently met with you Jacinda, at the Prime Minister’s Youth Awards dinner.   

I am at a loss to understand why you would undo something that has proven to be exactly what these young people need. I see Charter schools as the fence at the top of the cliff instead of the ambulance at the bottom. Please, this is money well spent. As a tax payer for 50 years I can’t express enough how much I would pay to see more young people go through Villa Education Trust schools. It is a success story!. I realise this is a simplistic way of viewing things, however future funding for well run Charter schools could equate to less funding required for prison and mental health services in the future. In my opinion, it must be cost effective to keep these schools running when you consider the possible negative social outcomes these schools are addressing.  

When weighed against the cost of our horrendous youth suicide statistics we must ask what investment are we really willing to make to ensure the future of New Zealand.?.Because these young people are as much a part of our future as any. SAMS has created an extended family environment where young people feel accepted, valued and a can develop an often much needed sense of belonging. They set high educational standards and expectations and the young people rise to the occasion. Pupils are given respect and become respectful in return. At SAMS EQ seems to be as important as IQ. They attend to the needs of the whole person. My grandchildren now dare to dream and have set high expectations and goals for themselves. Compared to their cousins who were not given this opportunity, the difference in personal growth achieved, has been a stark commentary on the inability of our mainstream educational.system to offer an equitable education to everyone..  

The Staff at SAMS are well qualified and amazingly committed, going way beyond the call of duty to ensure no one gets left behind..There was a genuine sense of Aroha at every school event I attended. The school culture encourages empathy, caring and individual accountability, and I consider this a credit to the staff and the leadership of the Villa Education Trust.

I have watched governments come and go in my lifetime, and have been disappointed many times by short sighted policies. But I was hopeful that this government would put ideology aside and sincerely care about every New Zealander as they promised. I was stunned tonight to hear it had been reported that Chris Hipkins stated Charter schools cherry pick for success. Well if that’s true, they ‘cherry pick’ vulnerable young people who are failing in the mainstream system and more often than not, come from disadvantaged homes.The fact that they can produce ‘successes’ only proves what they are doing is working.

How do we target child poverty? Could one of the ways be by producing independent, solution focussed learners who can navigate life successfully, use their initiative and be productive citizens rather than a drain on our social service system. How anyone could accuse Charter schools of elitism is beyond me..

I am not normally a particularly politically vocal person, but I have always voted as part of my responsibility as a NZ citizen and trusted our system, although not perfect, to be a fair and just one. I sincerely hope this government doesn’t bow to pressure from anyone who holds uniformed or misinformed prejudice against Charter schools, Please let common sense prevail. Why waste possibly ‘up to a million’ to compensate schools who produce excellent results, to close,? See the investment in Charter schools for what it is an  opportunity to turn lives around. As a society we will all benefit. 

I am not an education professional and may be viewing this from an emotional perspective, but as far as I can see the results speak for themselves. If you have any doubts, talk to the schools the senior pupils transition into. Charter schools can and do work under the current structure so why try to fix something that isn’t broken.

I strongly oppose any change that would disenfranchise these young people of the right to an education which works for them, no matter how small in number. 

Respectfully Prime Minister, you promised “a government for all New Zealanders,” an empathetic government to improve the lives of the country’s most vulnerable people.”  I am struggling to see how this proposed change is congruent with your stated vision? 

 

Yours sincerely,

This is the human face of the Government’s decision to close down charter schools. How can a Government that claims to care for the most disadvantaged in society, decide to close down schools that are making such a difference for those who are amongst the most disadvantaged.

A guest post by Bob Edlin:

Ahead of Waitangi Day, Wellington City Council on Monday announced it wants to hear from the public on how it can make Wellington a te reo Māori city and celebrate the language in the city.

Submissions received during a public consultation will help create an action plan to inform the way the council approaches signage and other public forms of communication, such as speeches, street art, murals and performing arts.

In its report on this initiative, Stuff portended bilingual signage around the city.

More important, Stuff noted this is not just about language.

The policy will include contributing to Māori well being and incorporating Māori perspectives in all policy work, as well as stimulating Māori economic, social and cultural innovation.

We can only wonder at how many citizens will better comprehend what is going on in their city – or what the signs are saying – after the policy is implemented.

Data from Statistics New Zealand tell us the most common languages spoken in New Zealand in 2013 were –

• English – spoken by 3,819,972 people (96.1 per cent of people who stated at least one language);
• Te reo Māori – 148,395 people (3.7 per cent).

Stuff in 2015 reported slightly different figures:

• In the 2013 census, 145,356 Kiwis said they could hold a conversation in te reo Māori – that’s just 3.25 percent. Of those, 125,352 were ethnically Māori – just over a fifth of the total Māori population;
• There were 8,436 people who said they spoke only Māori.

The population in 2013 was 4.442 million.  This implies just 0.1% of Maori could not understand civic speeches, council reports or the English-language signs which adorn all our cities.

Deputy Mayor Jill Day, who holds the Māori partnerships portfolio, told Stuff signs pointed the way to developing a wide-ranging new policy.

“It made us ask why don’t we have signs that are bilingual – but we don’t want this to be a policy that is all about signage – we want to take it further and focus on all the ways a language is seen and heard,” she said.

The current plan for signs was to replace old ones with bilingual versions when they needed renewing, and the policy would make it a priority for the council, she said.

Explaining why the council should show leadership and commitment, Day said te reo is an official language “and we need to make sure we back it.”

Here’s hoping she is aware of the flagging use of another official language.

In 2013, 20,235 people reported the ability to use New Zealand Sign Language, 16 per cent fewer than in 2006. Similarly, fewer people reported being able to use New Zealand Sign Language in 2006 than in 2001.

In the pursuit of partnership and diversity, we look forward to Day going out to bat for sign language, too – perhaps with signing on the signs that seem destined, sooner or later, to be adorned with te reo and English.

But how will the typical citizen respond to the elevation of te reo in civic affairs?

While explaining her mission, Day drew attention to an area in the city “where a Māori name takes pride of place”.

It’s Whairepo Lagoon.

But two years after it was officially given this name by the New Zealand Geographic Board – Day acknowledged – people still refer to it as Frank Kitts Lagoon.

Notwithstanding this experience, the council’s consultation document reportedly states that “te reo is an integral part of the city” and, as the capital, Wellington is

“well placed as the natural home of te reo…”

So we are supposed to believe the natural home of te reo is a city where special efforts must be taken to dissuade people from talking about Frank Kitts Lagoon and where council policy is being engineered (at what cost to ratepayers?) to ensure much greater use of the language on the public.

Council bureaucrats clearly are fluent in the patois that is not so much an official language as the language of too many officials – bollocks.

Note this post is “how caucus should vote” not “who caucus should vote”.

It will be no surprise that I’m not endorsing any candidate. I actually know all five of them pretty well and think it is great National has such a pool of talent that they have five credible candidates to choose from. Imagine the chaos Labour would have if they lost their leader.

So this post is about what are the factors that MPs should be taking into account in making their decision.

The overwhelming factor of course is electability. Who has the greatest chance of winning an election and getting National into Government. The problem is that there is no magic way to divine that. So what you look at are the different elements that make both a party and leader electable.

Not all elements are equally important. And no one candidate is likely to be the best at all of them. So caucus members will be deciding which factors they think are most important.

1. Communication skills. Can they do well on television. Can they handle a vigorous press conference or stand up. Can they not get flustered under pressure.
2. House performance. Are they good in the House. Can they expose the weak Ministers.
3. Prime Ministerial. Do they look and sound Prime Ministerial? Can voters see them as Prime Minister. Will voters want them as Prime Minister? Do they have a “back story” that appeals and interests New Zealanders.
4. Economic credibility. National’s big strength is that voters think they are much better economic managers than Labour. Does the leader have business and economic credibility.
5. Policy Knowledge. Are they able to get into enough policy detail that they can handle scrutiny of debates and interviews.
6. Policy Direction. Are they going to push the party towards policies that both reflect the party’s principles but also are electable
7. Caucus. Can they unite the caucus so that there are no stories about factions or splits.
8. Party. Can they energise the party members, volunteers and activists. Can they build up membership.
9. Speeches. Can they give great speeches that motivate and energise people.
10. Fundraising. Parties rely on members and donors. Will the leader encourage members and donors to donate enough to fund strong campaigns
11. Parliamentary staff. The leader employs 20 to 30 staff to support the entire parliamentary team. Will they attract and pick good people to work in what can be very important roles
12. Excite the base. Will the leader excite the 45% who voted for National and give them a reason to keep voting National?
13. Appeal to NZ First voters. Will the leader appeal to those voters who voted for Winston, never thinking he would put the Green Party into Government and now feel betrayed
14. Work with other parties. Can the leader work with other parties to form a Government, should this be necessary.
15. Political Judgement. Do they have good political instincts. Do they know what issues they should pursue and which they should not. Can they drive a political strategy to expose the Government’s shortcomings and promote a better alternative?

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters were both mistakenly paid over $21,000 for accommodation they didn’t need.

The pair put out a press release on Tuesday afternoon explaining the overpayment, which resulted from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) continuing to pay them an accommodation allowance despite each moving into an official residence.

You get either an official residence or an accommodation allowance, but not both.

Winston seems to be very unlucky with Government departments consistently over-paying him!

One also wonders if neither checks their bank accounts and notices an extra $10,000!

The media release forgot to mention that the election consisted of Winston riding triumphal elephants with a laurel wreath on his head as his caucus chanted “Imperator”.

Stuff reports:

National’s leadership race could be a clean sweep after it announced a vote on deputy Paula Bennett’s job.

Bennett did not stand aside at the time National leader Bill English announced his decision to retire from politics and has said she wants to continue as deputy.

But the National caucus today confirmed there would be a vote next week after a new leader is chosen.

This is totally usual, to have a vote on the deputy leadership along with a vote on the leadership. In fact you often have the whips positions also go up for a vote after a change of leader too.

On her way into caucus Tuesday morning Bennett reiterated that she would like to be deputy under the next leader and indicated she would be happy to serve with whoever was elected.

National’s senior Whip Jami-Lee Ross said Bennett approached him last week, to say it was likely the best thing for the party if there was a fresh vote.

“MPs will self-nominate, they’ll speak to the caucus and then the MPs will vote,” he said.

So Paula is a candidate, and at this stage the only candidate.

Stuff reported:

Jessica Mutch will replace Corin Dann as TVNZ’s political editor.

TVNZ confirmed on Monday that the 33-year-old reporter has been given the new role and will begin on March 26.

It means she’ll leave her post as a presenter of TVNZ’s Q + A – a job that, with its frequent interviews with the nation’s decision-makers, will have prepared her for life around parliament.

A good appointment.

Both Jessica and Tova have had similar career paths – an initial stint in the gallery, then working in other areas (including international assignments) for their broadcasters, before returning as political editor. I think it is useful to have a break from the gallery in one’s career.

The press gallery has annual photos of the gallery in their corridor. For many decades it was almost exclusively men. Today the five major news outlets (TVNZ, Newshub, NZ Herald, Stuff and Radio NZ) all have female political editors.

The latest poll by One News Colmar Brunton has Labour well up to 48% and able to govern alone. National is at 43%. The poll was partially taken during the time when National has no leader, so perhaps not entirely surprising.

The Greens are down at 5% and NZ First at 3%. This indicates their challenge – how to get people who like the Government to vote for them rather than that nice Jacinda.

For NZ First to be so low so quickly should worry them. They haven’t even had any scandals yet.

The poll also shows the considerable challenge that National has. They need to be able to not just keep the 45% who voted for them (which is by no means guaranteed), but attract an extra 2% to 3% on top of that.

The Herald reports:

Steven Joyce has confirmed he will contest the National Party leadership.

Joyce told Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking he would become the fifth candidate to replace Bill English.

Joyce said lots of colleagues and regular New Zealanders told him to put his name forward.

“My view is it has always been about the National Party, it’s not about me personally.”

Joyce said he was not troubled by National’s three-point dip in last night’s 1 News-Colmar Brunton poll.

Instead he took it as a reminder to people that being the largest party was not a given and good polling was not a given.

“You actually have to go out and earn every day the respect of the public and the right of the public to contest for the election in 2020. It’s a contest of ideas and a contest of how well organised you are. And that’s the challenge for our party.”

Great to see so many credible candidates to choose from. This is effectively the first open leadership contest in many decades. Previous leadership elections or changes were either a coup against the leader or a clear front runner who ends up being confirmed without a vote (English 2016, Key 2006).

Go back further and Brash, English, and Shipley all became leader through direct challenges to the incumbent leader.

Go back further and 1986 was Bolger rolling McLay. In 1984 there was a three way vote on the leadership but it included the imcumbent leader Muldoon so not a true open contest.

1974 was Muldoon rolling Marshall. So really the last open one was 1972 when Muldoon and Marshall both stood to replace Holyoake.

Before that 1957 was uncontested with Holyoake replacing Holland. Back in 1940 it was Holland rolling Hamilton. The only other uncontested vote was at the party’s founding in 1936 when Hamilton defeated Wilkinson.

So this is the third open leadership contest in National’s history, and the most contested one with five candidates. This again makes it less likely anyone gets 29 votes on the first ballot, and it may even need four ballots to get a winner.

I’ll update this post regularly as a public service so people can track who is standing, not standing and may be standing. Am going purely off public statements or direct communications.

Standing

• Judith Collins
• Simon Bridges
• Amy Adams
• Mark Mitchell
• Steven Joyce

The Herald reports:

Now there are four: Mark Mitchell has confirmed he will contest the National Party leadership.

Mitchell confirmed this afternoon that he will contest the position vacated by Bill English.

Mitchell, a former police dog handler, said National was built on very strong foundations and had 80 years of history of delivering.

“I am entering the race because I want to win. I am entering to win.”

He said what set him apart was his leadership ability and a strong track record building a team.

“The reason I am putting myself up for the leadership is because I want New Zealand to be an even better country.”

He said he wanted to hold the “shambolic Government” to account.

“I’m not scared of taking on an opponent.”

The more who stand, the more exciting it gets. It also makes it more likely no one gets 29 votes on the first vote, and it would go to a 2nd or 3rd round of voting.

He said he was disappointed when Labour leader Jacinda Ardern had said it was her generation’s turn.

“When you’re the leader of a country, you lead for all generations.”

Good line.

Mitchell also signalled Steven Joyce would be kept on as finance spokesman, saying he was doing an amazing job.

It is very important that we have strong economic credentials in the senior leadership team.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s total fertility rate dipped to a record low last year.

New data from Statistics New Zealand shows our national fertility rate was down to 1.81 births per woman – the lowest level since records started in the 1920s.

There were 59,610 live births registered in 2017.

Based on birth rates in 2017, Kiwi women would average 1.81 births over their lifetime.

That’s below the replacement rate to keep the population stable. Without immigration we would have a shrinking population!

“In contrast, fertility rates increased dramatically following the Great Depression and World War II, peaking at 4.31 births per woman in 1961,” he said.

Wow that was a lot.

I think even the candidates themselves will enjoy this piss take by Toby and Toby on the leadership candidates. A couple of extracts:

Amy Adams: I’m a cocktail. A blend of tough Auckland upbringing and rarefied Canterbury sheep farmer’s wife. A blend of sensible and generous. A blend of conservative and liberal. A blend of urban and rural. A blend of Amy and Adams.

I’m somewhat unique, quite unique and also very unique. Let’s stabilise this.

Simon Bridges: I’m a cocktail. Experienced and not experienced. Matinee idol and Pop Idol. I’m a new generation and an old generation and happy to just keep saying generation a lot generally. I’m your granddad. I’m your grandson. I’m youth adjacent and I’m oldjacent.

Relentlessly positive and Posilessly relentive. I’m pregnant, with ideas.

Let’s generationalise. Let’s do this brighter future. Yeah?

Judith Collins: Cocktails are for losers.

I’m a flaming absinthe, trailing blisters on the faces of the weak. Strong. Decisive. Fighty. Strongly and decisively fighting against the true enemies of New Zealand: PC virtue signalling snowflake do-gooders on Twitter.

Let’s incinerate this.

Heh.

On countering the Ardern government

Amy Adams: My husband’s a fisherman.

Simon Bridges: Look, I’m excited. And so is Simon Bridges. He also is excited. Simon and I will say that very slowly so you can understand how unmistakably excited he and I are. We’re excited. We’re upbeat. We’re just loving life, really, in a very serious way. Quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, Simon and I are second to none when it comes to being excited and up and beat.

Judith Collins: Jacinda Ardern is a formidable opponent. And so are the cicadas that keep me awake in my Papakura citadel, and which I effortlessly silence nightly with the power of argument and fire.

And finally:

Supporter endorsements

Amy Adams

Nikki Kaye, MP: Go Amy!

Maggie Barry, MP: Amy, wonderful Amy.

Chris Bishop, MP: Amy.

Tim Macindoe: Hi!

Simon Bridges

Simon: Great guy.

Mr Bridges: The best.

SB: Better than the best.

Another guy called Simon: Agree.

Judith Collins

The whisper of the sea: Judith.

The molten earth: Judith.

The ceaseless inferno: Judith!

Stuff reports:

Women’s Minister and Green Party co-leadership candidate Julie Anne Genter has announced she is pregnant.

Genter announced on Sunday that she and partner Peter Nunns are expecting a child in August.

The pregnancy did not at all change her intention to stand for co-leader or to carry on as Women’s Minister and associate transport and health minister. …

Genter will be 16 weeks pregnant on Monday, having found out in December.

This is Genter’s third pregnancy – she lost the first two to miscarriages.

“So this has been a surprise – but really welcome and exciting.”

She is planning to take around three months off from Parliamentary duties but just six weeks off her ministerial role. After that her partner Nunns will take on fulltime caregiving.

That’s lovely news for Julie-Anne and her partner – especially after the earlier miscarriages.

There have been pregnant MPs at various times for the last 50 years. Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan was first in 1970. Later on there was Ruth Richardson, Katherine Rich and Holly Walker. However there does seem to be a record number of MPs at the moment who have either just given birth (Allan and Prime) or will do so this year (Ardern and Genter).

I hope in the future the announcement an MP is pregnant will be so common that it won’t be noteworthy.

In just a few months the list of Government backflips is reaching levels you;d normally get after many years in office. Here’s a few of them:

1. TPP – gone from leading marches against it to supporting it
2. Pike River – backtracked on guaranteed entry to “only if it is safe”
3. Trees – said they would plant one billion trees, now trying to claim private sector plantings also as part of that total
4. Open Government – claimed they would be the most open yet, won’t even answer basic written questions on meetings
5. Housing Ministry – said they would set one up, backtracked
6. 90 day trials – said they would be gone, backtracked for small business
7. MPI – said they would split in in three, now just having teams within it (which were already there mostly)
8. Te Reo – said they want it compulsory then backflip
9. GST on online sales – Nash announced then backtracked
10. Charter schools – position seems to change every few weeks

The Herald on Sunday editorial:

Associate Health Minister Jenny Salesa, who made the comment above, went on to say carcinogens found in e-cigarette vapour are “at levels much lower than found in cigarette smoke, or at levels that are unlikely to cause harm”.

So why does “vaping” of nicotine remain in a legal limbo? Why does it remain even more restricted than cigarettes? The previous Government, after prevaricating for years, decided to legalise the sale of nicotene for e-cigarettes to customers over 18 but it has not happened yet. Salesa says the new Government has it under consideration. …

But ordinary observation suggests “vapers” are overwhelmingly former smokers and vaping is certainly better for them than tobacco. So why the hold-up in legalising them?

It must be the culture that worries the public health professionals. They might not approve of people sucking anything but fresh air into their lungs, but they know they need better reasons that to restrict a product in demand. They say they have found some carcinogens in the vapour but those do not sound very serious.

They also dispute whether e-cigarettes help people to quit smoking. They might not quit vaping but that should not be the test. Vaping is obviously less harmful and its legality should be cleared up.

Public Health England has said e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco. Now that is not 100%. But hell 95% less harmful is immense. Allowing e-cigarettes to be easily sold in NZ could be the easiest and best way to achieve the 2025 smoke free goal.

The Herald reports:

Ponsonby Road was lit up in every colour of the rainbow for the Pride Parade.

More than 3500 people took part in the annual parade – including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – while tens of thousands of people lined the street to watch the action.

Ardern launched the parade by cutting the last of several rainbow ribbons shortly before 7.30pm.

She became the first Prime Minister to walk in the event, marching alongside the Labour Party’s red caravan.

She’s not the first PM – not by 19 years.

Jenny Shipley attended the Hero Parade as PM in 1999. The Pride Parade is basically the same event, under a different name.

NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell has a bill to make English an official language in New Zealand.

This bill seems to be even worse than the luggage recovery bill of a couple of years ago, and that takes some beating.

English is an official language of New Zealand. We know this because Mr Mitchell’s bill is in English – something not possible if it was not already an official language. You can be an official language without having a law declaring a language to be official. It is called being the de facto official language of New Zealand.

Does the UK have a law declaring English to be an official language? Does France have a law declaring French to be an official language?

Maori and Sign Language have laws declaring them to be official languages, because they were not already the de facto official language of New Zealand. We don’t need a law that will achieve absolutely nothing.

Stuff reports:

An uncomfortable incident in a pool changing shed has sparked debate about how appropriate it is for adults to strip naked in front of children.

Engineer Shabbir Ahmed was at the Lido Aquatic Centre in Palmerston North in February when he saw a child become distressed on seeing a completely naked man in the open changing area. 

“The father of the kid put a towel over his face and said ‘don’t look over there’,” Ahmed said.

“It does not leave a positive impact on a child’s brain.”

Ahmed said the centre had private changing rooms that adults should use to avoid placing children in potentially vulnerable situations.

Oh Good God can we stop being so precious.

In changing rooms, people are naked. If you have a phobia over seeing penises, then you can go use the private changing rooms. Incidentally a kid who gets distressed seeing a naked man, may have body image issues growing up.

I go swimming a fair bit and changing rooms are always full of adults and kids. Sometimes dads even have their young daughters with them (as they can’t go into the women’s changing rooms).

All that is needed is common sense. Look after your kids, and understand the difference between appropriate nudity (in a changing room) and inappropriate (on a bus).