The announcement by the Greens yesterday was so courageous. Treading where no political party had dared in 30 years, they set-out boldly how and what they will do to close the inequality gap.

By Tuifa’asisina Mea’ole Keil

The Green Party of Aotearoa yesterday announced their employment policy. I went because a ‘friend’ would not take “no” for an answer. She insisted I go. So I went.

I have been to a few political campaign employment policy announcements before. They are pretty much middle of the road neo-liberal economic proclamations. The speaker would normally go to great lengths to justify what a sound economic proponent ‘neo-liberalism’ is.

In short they either sing the praises of neo-liberal economics or perhaps re-align it to sound neo-liberal with a “socialist” message. This type of speaker is conscious that the model should not come across to say that welfare for the people is a waste of good money, while corporate welfare is good, because it is investing in businesses that can ‘trickle down’ benefits through jobs. And the more productive the job-type and employee, the greater the ‘trickle down’ they get as a reward.

All of it sounds good, but the reality is this: after 30 years of neo-liberal economics, the world has not seen such a level of income inequality before. The ‘trickle down’ of benefits have slowed to drips if any at all.

In short, the wealth created by workers are not trickling down. This is a double whammy because Governments have also been penalised because they have not been getting their proportional share in income taxes from the wealth created.

So where are the ‘trickle down’ and lost income taxes in the neo-liberal model going?

Trickle down is not happening because wages are kept low. While most of the taxes are being paid for by middle and low income workers. Tax evasion has become a rich man’s game because with all their money, they can afford to hire specialists who openly and creatively find ways and loopholes for their clients to avoid paying taxes. Another popular tax evasion method for the rich and wealthy is to enlist ‘desperate for cash’ Governments as tax havens. Thus the memorable line by Gordon Gekko in the movie Wall Street “Greed is good” is the mantra by which these businesses operate.

It may be a game amongst them but the impacts on the rest of society is an increase in Inequality because the ‘trickle down’ of benefits has effectively been stopped.

It is why the employment policy announcement by the Green Party yesterday was such a bold statement. It left no room for doubters or naysayers as to the Greens motive behind its ‘workers policy’. They have researched, investigated, talked to communities and concluded the inequality and unfairness rife in New Zealand Aotearoa is caused by neo-liberal economics. And they will put a stop to it. “We want a fairer and more equal New Zealand,” stated co-Leader Metiria Turei. “A New Zealand for all.”

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), national economies with large income gaps perform poorly.

Common sense tells us if the bulk of the wealth created by workers go to top level management and investors, then there is not much incentive for workers – productivity falls. When productivitiy falls, employers solve it by creating work conditions to form a casualised work force. Usually they do this by lobbying the government of the day to weaken employment laws so that unions and individual workers have less bargaining powers and rights.

It’s amazing to see the impacts of major decisions made at the government level. If neo-liberal economics had never been introduced, then wages would have increased in line with all the extra value increases in productivity since the early 1990s. If that was the case, then the average wage in 2014 would have been $36.00 per hour, instead of the $26.70/hr it is right now.

It means neo-liberal economics has allowed the wealthy to keep about $10,000.00 per worker per year from ‘trickling down’ since the 1990s. A system that for 30 years has kept wages low and causing the following impacts:

Low wages and insecure employment does not raise a family;

Low wages and insecure employment does not build a community;

Low wages and insecure employment does not build a nation.

It is why the announcement by the Greens yesterday was so courageous. They clearly and boldly set out what and how they were going to close the inequality gap. They said the National-led government’s attacks on workers’ rights shall cease. And when the Greens are in Government, they will remove the 90 days “fire at will” law. Democracy and fairness shall be brought back into the workplaces. Collective bargaining rights for workers will be strengthened.

They will increase the minimum wage to $15.00/hr by December 2014, and increase it by a further $1.00/hour every 1^st April. Their aim is to raise the minimum wage to $18.00 per hour by the 1^st April 2017.

For government workers, the Green Party, “…will ensure the Living Wage is paid to all core public servant staff. We will also require government contractors to pay a Living Wage to their staff when contracts come up for renewal.”

As expected Business NZ jumped up and down. They issued a statement that the Green’s workers policy would result in job losses and investors losing confidence. But for all their objections, two questions still linger unanswered for me:

1. Why is it that there is no restraint or transparency when CEOs’ and Directors pay packages are negotiated, and
2. Why is it that when companies make profits, there is no mechanism that delivers any rewards for the workers. What is good for management does not apply as good practice for workers.

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) gave ordinary people a look at how the world operate for the rich and the powerful. These people can, and have caused global financial collapses yet they can get Governments to pay for their mistakes. They get to keep their jobs and still have the power to pay themselves massive bonuses.

The Greens’ policy is clear. It’s a message to “everyone” that the Government will no longer subsidize wages, with welfare payments. Employers need to be fairer in how they share the wealth that workers create. Employers need to pay their fair share of the living costs for workers and be a contributor to the wellbeing of families, communities and the nation.

As I see it, the problem with this country is not that there is not enough wealth and resources to share. The problem is an elite few now own and control the bulk of this country’s wealth and are not eager to share. The ‘Greed is Good’ mantra must no longer be the standard operational business protocol.

For us Pacific Islanders, the best part of the Green’s Policy came in two parts:

1. Introduction of compulsory payments. It means that if workers lose their jobs they get at least four weeks’ pay in compensation. This gives workers job security and become more attractive to banks to give mortgages to buy houses. Also, it is good for the tax payer as this gives workers at least four weeks to find employment before they become eligible for the unemployment benefits. Workers at the moment when they become redundant more or less go straight onto the unemployment benefit.
2. Currently, migrant workers are vulnerable to exploitation. For us Pacific islanders Return Seasonal Employment scheme (RSE) workers fit into this group. Greens in government will give migrant workers greater protection. Workers who report exploitation will have their work visas protected while their claims are investigated. Security will be provided if needed to ‘whistle blowers’. And lastly, the Labour Inspectorate will have wider and stronger powers of enforcement.

This is good news for all New Zealanders because reports of migrant worker exploitation in this country has become more frequent. This damages New Zealand’s international reputation and profile. This country is valued worldwide as a just and honest global citizen serving in conflict zones all over the world as peacekeepers, and in other capacities, yet we allow exploitation of foreign workers in our terrority.

The Green Party announcement for me answers the question, “if National and Labour are both announcing the building of social housing for low and middle income New Zealanders, how will these people get mortgages to buy their first homes?”

Ask any bank for a mortgage and a simple formula applies:

1. How much do you earn?
2. What type of job do you have?
3. Do you have a permanent job that is secure?
4. Is there a redundancy provision in your employment agreement?

The first two questions for low income earners like cleaners and security guards mean their mortgage application is declined. Answer no to the last two questions and the applicants’ chances are further diminished, for if there is no job security how would the applicant be able to pay off a mortgage which now currently takes over 25 years.

Every New Zealander needs to ask the question: if these workers cannot, in their working life, buy a home and save up for retirement, how then will they live and support themselves when they are in their 70s?

More importantly if we can’t afford to buy them, then who are we building these social houses for?

 

$1Billion dollars of new spending in Budget 2014 would indicate that we should be expecting two pieces of toast each, with butter, jam, cheese and eggs, and perhaps even some bacon or sausages for breakfast, and we would still have some left over to save in the bank. 

By Su’a William Sio 

This will be the National Government’s sixth budget. It comes on the background of austerity measures, tax switch, raising GST, and capping public service numbers when they first became government.  In those earlier years, the government argued for more austerity measures and capping of public sector workforce and general tightening of our spending because of the Global Financial Crisis, the recession New Zealand was experiencing, and then the Christchurch earthquake.

In last year’s budget we were all told that we had to tighten our belts and couldn’t spend at large, despite being told the New Zealand economy was recovering already. I therefore described the previous budget as a budget that provided a piece of toast, but we couldn’t afford any butter or jam.

This year however, the Prime Minister has indicated already there’ll be $1Billion dollars of new spending in Budget 2014 and his government has said to expect a surplus in this year.  That would indicate that we should be expecting two pieces of toast each, with butter, jam, cheese and eggs, and perhaps even some bacon or sausages for breakfast, and we would still have some left over to save in the bank.

It would make sense that there would be more to spend this time around and also have some left over for the bank. We’ve been told that the Global Financial Crisis was over in 2009, our economy has been on the recovery since then, the Christchurch rebuild is advancing gradually, and business confidence is growing. We’ve also been told that more people are participating actively in the workforce, there have been significant movements in the average wage for workers, and this government is doing something about the housing crisis.

The problem with this nice picture of economic recovery is it doesn’t align with the harsh reality that many working families are experiencing at the community level.  I’m reminded me a Samoan saying, “e fiu lava e u’u le tae pua’a, ae pipilo lava – it does not matter how much perfume one pours on pig shit, it still stinks”. It doesn’t matter how the government sugar coats their story, and politicises everything they say and do, working families throughout New Zealand are hurting and it stinks.

When the economy is said to move out of recession and government finances are expected to improve to the point of a surplus, we should have high expectations of an improved quality of life for all kiwi families. Why shouldn’t we have these high expectations, given the past six years have seen so many families struggling to make ends meet, that many families also moved to Australia for a better future. We have a right to demand a high standard of living and a quality of life in our country.

The key barometers for measuring how well an economy is doing and the quality of life the people are enjoying are essentially how many people are in jobs, the level of incomes they’re earning, and how many are living in their own house.

• The harsh reality for Pacific families is the rate of unemployment is today at 13% when it was 7.4% in December 2008. What new jobs can we expect from this Budge will be created with the improved economic conditions? How many jobs can we expect to see generated by an improving economy?  Labour has announced that through the power of government we will target a reduction in unemployment and target a 4% unemployment rate in our first term.
• Pacific peoples median weekly income was at $455 per week in 2008 then dropped to $381 median weekly wage at the end of 2013. What initiatives will deliver high incomes for the majority of New Zealanders? What new initiatives will address the growing inequality in incomes between Pacific peoples and the rest of New Zealand?
• Pacific youth not in employment, education or training (NEET) was 13.7% in 3rd quarter 2008 and moved to 20.4% in the 3rd quarter of 2013. What new initiative can we expect to see being promoted that will ensure that every young person from 15-24 years will be in employment, education or training? Will those initiatives actually reduce these figures of youth NEETs?
• Home ownership has been steadily declining for all New Zealanders, but even more so for Pacific families. In 2006 58% of Pacific people lived in rental accommodation (either private rental or with HNZ), compared with 33% of all other New Zealanders. Conversely, only 37% of Pacific people owned their own home, compared with 67% of the total of the rest of New Zealand population. Home ownership for Pacific people as at January 2013 was 21.8%.
• In Auckland, the median house price has risen more than 40% since 2008, with the average price now over $700,000. The city needs 13,000 new homes a year to catch up on the shortfall of housing and keep up with the demand. We heard in the last budget about a housing Accord but so far I’ve only seen 23 new houses being built to address the housing crisis. Those houses were built through a project by the Tongan Methodist church in my electorate, a project that they started in 2008.
• Recent reports also indicated that almost 50% of the New Zealand labour force did not receive a wage increase last year. Furthermore, these reports also highlight that Maori and Pacific people are living in the most deprived areas in New Zealand.

I hope the Budget is not a rehashing of things they’ve already announced. It would be extremely disappointing if National continues with politics as usual. National has to take seriously the budget must be about tangible things that will give people opportunities for better jobs and higher incomes and affordable housing. New Zealanders deserve better than National’s politics as usual.

Is there anything we should expect for Pacific peoples?  Our communities have every right to expect high valued jobs and high incomes given the recent statements from the Pacific peoples championing National stating National will deliver jobs, educational opportunities and reduce our crime rate.  Let’s see what National will deliver. I hope it isn’t just words like many other budgets of weasel words and broken promises and no actual manifestation of helping people.

Will we see a commitment to Pacific languages now that National has a Pacific Minister of Pacific Island Affairs who has heard from far and wide of the importance of Pacific bilingual education?

Will we see a changing attitude towards Pacific immigration in recognition of its special relationship with Pacific peoples, and in recognition that some islands will eventually be covered by rising sea water levels?

Will we see a budget increase for the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs? Or will we see a budget increase to Pacific Business Trust, the economic development arm of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs?

Will we see a determination to give more of our young people greater opportunities to access tertiary education, apprenticeships, and trades education? Or will it be the same announcements being rehashed again?

Only tomorrow will tell when Bill English delivers his budget speech. In my estimation, Budget 2014 will either revive National’s falling poll results, or it will seal its fate as a two-term government.

By David Shearer

Whether we’re running a business or a household budget, we all need to know where our money’s going.

It’s one thing to have rising power prices: some people have reported to me that their bills are going up 21% this year, and that’s rough news to receive just prior to winter.

But it’s downright frustrating when you can’t get a straight answer about why the increases are necessary and where they’re coming from.

Transpower, the monopoly government agency that controls our grid, has racked up its prices to the local lines companies that supply customers their power. This despite making a 117% record profit increase over the last six months and paying sizeable dividends to the government.

On top of that, each component of our power industry is blaming the others for the rises to customers: saying ‘hey, it’s not our fault’ while many quietly pocket a proportion of the increases.

In short, Kiwis are being stung by a system that allows power companies to hide increased prices and profits. It’s a cynical blame game that Energy Minister Simon Bridges is happy to defend.

That’s why I’ve drafted a Private Members’ Bill to provide clarity around electricity prices. Customers need accurate information. I want to see transparent billing, with all the various cost unbundled, so we can all see where our money is going.

That way, when prices rise, we’ll be able to see why, and who’s responsible.

The bills should also be standardised so we can see price changes from one month to the next, and they’ll be standardised across companies too – so we can compare, say, a Mercury bill with a Contact bill.

These new, transparent bills will also tell us how much of the energy we’ve used came from renewable sources.

Doug Heffernan, CEO of Mighty River Power, said at select committee this week that he too is sick of the confusion about who is responsible for rising power prices. He said, “I am heartily sick of it, I’m absolutely up to the gills in it – which is why I’m saying, separate the bloody bills. I can’t cause that to happen – only policy can do that. Separate the bills and be done with it, quickly.”

Heffernan wants bills to be split in two, with consumers getting one invoice for the energy charges and another for the lines charges.

I agree with the sentiment – we both want greater clarity – but I don’t think getting two separate bills is necessarily the answer. Instead, we just need proper transparency in our one bill.

That way, we can all keep abreast of what’s happening with our household and business budgets, we’ll know where any increases are coming from, and we can hold our power companies and lines companies accountable.

David Shearer is Labour’s Spokesman for Energy and Foreign Affairs

Related articles

• Rising power prices: PM takes aim
• Inquiry into power price rises
• Power firms blame each other as household bills soar
• Labour attacks Electricity Authority
• MPs told power bills should be split
• Push to give price power to the people

When the Prime Minister announced that the 2014 General Election will be held on Saturday, 20th September, all I could think of was – Bring It On!

Our Pasifika communities are ready to fight to get rid of National.

We will fight National not only in the corridors of Parliament, but we’ll fight them in the streets of South Auckland, we’ll fight them in our church halls and also in our fleamarkets.

We will fight them through to 20th September.

After 6 years of this National Government being in power, Pasifika and working class people throughout New Zealand have patiently waited for the opportunity to remove this Government from office on Election Day.

For six long years National has altered and mutated New Zealand into a country that only benefits their mates and the privileged few at the expense of the rest of New Zealanders.

As long as Mr Key and National are in power, building a society that is fair, inclusive and provides opportunities for all peoples will only become harder.

National is taking New Zealand in a different direction.

It is a direction where those with money can afford the best houses in the best neighbourhoods while the rest of us struggle to keep pace with rental prices, power and other day to day bills.

After six years of a John Key National government, there is a growing mood that he must be removed from office, before it becomes harder and more expensive to undo the harm he is causing the rest of New Zealanders.

When Mr Key first came into power, many Kiwis said that John Key’s National government was business savvy and good for our country’s economy. We soon learnt they applied their business nous in backroom deals with Sky City, Rio Tinto and MediaWorks and we now know that they’ve really only been looking after their mates.

Many of us admired Mr Key’s rags to riches life story – from state house to international money exchanger – accumulating a personal wealth of more than $50 million.

But he was quickly out of touch with people by refusing to address poverty issues involving more than 280,000 New Zealand children living in poverty.

He dismissed the stop asset sales referenda and refused to listen to the more than 300,000 New Zealanders who signed that petition.

He was dismissive when most of us said that something has to be done about rising power prices and New Zealanders wanted change in the electricity industry.

He refused to listen.

We admired that he was charismatic and a polished performer. But then he became very evasive when he is asked the hard questions and is quite slippery and hard to tie down when he is asked about his broken promises.

He recently misled reporters over Cabinet Office advice about a controversial visit by Justice Minister Judith Collins to a Chinese company associated with her husband while on an official trip to China.

We liked that he was a strong leader, had a good smile and was able to mix and mingle with world leaders. But he now seems preoccupied with Obama, the Royal family, the G20 summit, and is out of touch with everyday New Zealanders who are doing it tough.

I’m nervous about New Zealand and our future if National is given a third term.

In the last six years they have changed the landscape of our New Zealand economy to favour the few over the many.

Many of National’s legislative agenda are tailor made to support big businesses who in turn fund National’s campaign war chest.

More and more families are doing it tough. They struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living.

It is tough:

• when people spend two thirds of their earnings to pay for renting a house.
• to work in more than 2 casual or part-time jobs, earning low wages to support your family.
• work long hours and earn only enough just to get by.
• when power prices soar and rents continue to rise, families are forced to cut spending on food, clothing and medical care which in turn leads to children missing out on decent meals.
• when unaffordable housing means crowded living conditions as families live and struggle together to make ends meet.

In these conditions children get sick, or get abused.

Unemployment remains constant above 6% and wages remain low.

Our traditional safety net of a Welfare System is virtually gutted by this government. They’ve put so much pressure on the unemployed, sick, disabled or single parents struggling to support their children to get out and find work, any work, at any pay.

They have and continue to remove people off welfare by the use of threats, cutting benefits, even though this might endanger young children in those families.

These are the actions of a heartless government that is arrogant, out of touch and continues looking after themselves and the privileged few, at the expense of ordinary Kiwis.

We must remove this Government from office, if we want to build a society that provides real opportunities to all our families to get ahead.

This Election our communities want to feel confident that the next Government will help put money in the pockets of every day New Zealanders.

They want assurances that anyone who wants to work will have access to a job, or training to secure that job. That they will have the opportunity to make some decent money. A wage that can put good food on the table and support their families’ day to day needs.

They want protection and the best start for their children – the future of New Zealand. They want decent and affordable homes. They want to feel they can contribute their fair share to building up a country that we can all be proud of.

This can only be achieved through a Labour Government and not National.

During this campaign, National might have more corporate sponsors than Labour, but Labour has community power – you – the people. There are more working class every day New Zealanders than National supporters.

If we all turned out and vote on Election Day – we’ll win and National will lose.

We’ve got to do this for the sake of all our families, especially our children.

If we turn out to vote for Labour this coming election, we can stop National once and for all and begin to build confidence and certainty in the hearts and minds of all our peoples.

We can do this. It will be tough, but we can do it.

Let’s take the fight to National and hope you’ll rally your families to vote and support a Labour-led Government.

Related articles

• John Key’s housing package leaves Pacific islanders in the cold
• NZ General Election: 20 September 2014

 

“…there is no such thing as society.” Margaret Thatcher, British PM October 1987

By Tuifa’asisina Mea’ole Keil

With the passing of Margaret Thatcher emotions of the time have been revisited. Some of joy, some of anger, and some of sadness.

By the time you read this the lady would have been buried. The Queen’s attendance at the funeral has been hotly debated by the British media, with their international counterparts also joining in.

While those who admire the woman have been full of praise, those who bore the brunt of her reforms and suffered, say they are still suffering from it are seen partying in the streets.

The embarrassment the Queen and the British Government has to endure at such a time when public sentiment seems to be reflected in the song “Ding Dong the witch is dead” just missed out on being the number one hit song on the UK charts. The song from the 1939 movie, The Wizard of Oz –became the Anti -Thatcher anthem during her time as PM – is now played as a celebration of her death by the working class of Britain.

As dignitaries from around the world (some have given apologies) gather, so havethe efforts of those who suffered at the time living with its consequences are also matching the “official” funeral with their Anti- Thatcher celebrations.

Why would a leader nearly after 30 years in office be remembered by the working class of Britain as a witch and an evil person?

One only has to look at the people who are praising her most of the “elite” of British society, and those despising her Britain’s working class to get an understanding as to why this woman is controversial even in death. Since Thatcher, inequality has risen to record highs, and the rich have amassed fortunes not seen before.

The celebrations by the anti-Thatcher group and efforts of the Government and Thatcher supporters to banthe Ding Dong The Witch is Dead song being played by radio stations provides an interesting chapter in British history. Then again Thatcher’s mark was not left on just the Brits, it affected all western countries in some way.

It also changed the nature and character of both the left and right wing political parties. Labour at the time here in New Zealand, adopted the neo-liberal economic philosophies that came out of the Thatcher era. The National Governments of the 1990s took them further to reduce the power of unions. The unions, the defenders of the working class, were deemed by Thatcher as the “enemy within”. To this day the union movement is seen as how Thatcher described them as compared to their true role and function in society.

Voters bought into the Thatcher line that if people had a problem they should sort it out themselves. It was not the Government’s job to ensure there is proper housing, health care etc. for the people. The people in need of help were, according to Thatcher “… casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. It’s our duty to look after ourselves…” (Women’s Own, 31 October 1987).

This line of reasoning enabled Governments the world over to distance themselves from their primary duty to ensure a good standard of living for “all” their citizens, and gave Governments a license to smear and blame on those needing assistance from the State.

Workers were undervalued through individual employment contracts and New Zealand went as far as dismantling its employment awards system. Interestingly Australia still has an award system. Awards ensured an agreed wage for a type of work that applied throughout the country. The Employment Contracts Act removed the Awards and brought in market rates. This meant that workers like cleaners could be paid at different rates the employer wanted to pay and the minimum wage was the only marker stopping the wages getting lower.

Governments abandoned trying to work out how much a citizen needed in order to have a decent standard of living in favour of using market rates as the standards.

Countries like Finland opted out of such neo-liberal policies and pursued policies that ensured a more equal society. Now, about 30 years later, Finland, is seen as a world leader in quality education , health, etc. whereas the countries that have taken the neo-liberal path have become more unequal, with failing education, health, housing and other public services.

This Thatcher-type behaviour is seen here in New Zealand when you listen to Paula Bennett, Minster of Social Development, and the Prime Minister, John Key. Their primary line is that when people are in trouble and cannot afford to look after their families, it is due to the bad choices parents/people have made.

This then sets up debates about how people budget and avoids two main factors that contribute to people’s misery: wages and sharing the wealth of the Nation.

Thatcher’s reasoning allowed, with voters’ full support, workers having their terms and conditions of work reduced, and gave the high income earners and businesses tax cuts. (The trickle down theory). The line was if you make a profit, you deserve a reward. After all, if businesses do well they will share their profits with good workers.

The 2006 New Zealand census and statistics from other developed countries show that businesses that do well do not share their profits with workers fairly, if at all. What was shown by the figures was that the higher up in the business ladder you are, the more likely you are to gain a share of the profits and of course bonuses to managers was highest on the list.

Even back in 2006 the stats did not provide an insight as to how the bonus reward system worked or got paid out.

In 2013 we now see evidence dating back to 2008, that failing businesses still paid out bonuses to their managers. The facts discredit another of Thatcher’s arguments that those at the top deserve all what they are paid. This was and is arrogance. This translated to mean there are rules for those at that the top and you people at the bottom are only to blame yourselves for being at the bottom. Therefore you deserve what you get and be happy with it.

So when you heard last week Paula Bennett’s comments about her latest benefit reforms and compare the words and thinking used by the Thatcher Government of the 1980s it’s all there. Blame the citizen in need of help, acknowledge that times are hard, follow up with the brighter future line, validate your statement with a success story.

With no jobs out there Paula Bennett says if you look hard enough, even competing with over 170,000 other people unemployed, if you cannot find a job then there is something wrong with you, so we will cut your benefit. It’s your fault, it’s not the Government’s job to make everything easy for you. You need to do your bit.

It is this core philosophy of Margaret Thatcher that still makes me very angry today. I believe in society, and I believe in a collective that ensures every man, woman and child has all the basics in life. Communities do have a say in what terms and conditions society expects of everyone, and in turn everyone is expected to be part of that community.

Everyone looks after everyone and the more you have the more you share with those in need. That is a basic tenet upon which humanity is founded upon.

As the world witnesses the passing of Margaret Thatcher, we have already seen how London society has fought back to rebuild its solid humanitarian foundations.

London becoming a Living Wage City has put it back on pathway of recovery. Workers now can earn a living wage and be involved in the affairs of their communities and city.

This is reason enough to support the Living Wage movement here in New Zealand. Look

out for your opportunity to get involved and make a difference to families and communities.

Samoa e, tula’i mai e saili se tatou lumana’i manuia.

 

 

New Zealand’s current education system, is not providing positive outcomes for many Pacific students and needs to change according to Nicholas Tuitasi, the Pacific Engagement Advisor, for the Tamaki Campus of Te Wananga o Aotearoa.

“As a Pacific community, we have been here in New Zealand for more than sixty years yet, in terms of education achievements, we are still way down the bottom,” said Mr Tuitasi.

He said a 2007 survey by the Ministry of Social Development on young Pacific islanders revealed three reasons they felt that is so.

“First they said some Pacific people don’t understand the education system,” recalled Mr Tuitasi.

“Second is that many parents aren’t equipped to parent us here. They have come with a roadmap from the islands but none of those streets exist here in New Zealand. That is why we’re lost.

“And third, a large number of churches sap resources, time, money and energy.”

Mr Tuitasi identifies with the survey’s findings. He knows all too well having failed through the school system in the late 1970s early 1980s. He ended up repeating his fifth form year and then leaving Avondale College with only two school certificate subjects, and no qualifications.

“As I look back, we had all the school opportunities available to us,” he said. “But I didn’t have a game plan on how to use education properly. Although we were getting a lot of encouragement from our parents, drumming to us ‘school first, school first,’ it didn’t really break down to anything tangible.”

Nearly thirty years later, Mr Tuitasi has achieved many things but in his latest role, he says that change must happen for Pacific children to succeed at school.

“We have to make real changes otherwise we will continue to underachieve.”

He added, “If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.”

And now, as the Pacific engagement advisor for T.W.O.A., he has been working on a plan he believes will make those changes happen.

“We need to help change the system so it is suitable for us.”

And for the past two years, T.W.O.A. has been working at creating a Pacific education superhighway through the school system.

“We hope to pilot this model in the Mangere area,” said Mr Tuitasi. “And if it works well, I am confident it can be replicated in other New Zealand areas, and possibly a model for overseas countries as well.

“I’m now considering the 55,000 people living in Mangere of which 64 percent of them are Pacific. I have looked at the 19 schools here that educate our kids and so far identifying obstacles stopping Pacific students from succeeding in the current system.”

At the secondary school level of the proposed superhighway, “Once we have identified all of the obstacles, we will invite those principals and board members to come to a fono where we can discuss and implement solutions.”

The main aspect Mr Tuitasi wants changed is for Pacific students to make Science, Technology, English and Mathematics (S.T.E.M.) compulsory at all three levels of the N.C.E.A. curriculum.

Currently, S.T.E.M. is compulsory only at Level-1.

And Mr Tuitasi noted that a high percentage of Pacific students drop S.T.E.M. subjects after Level-1 in favour of “Physical Education, performing arts, and other subjects, although important for our students thinking outside the square, these are considered soft options by Universities and future employers.

“And that’s one of the main differences, where many palagi kids are coming out of High School with real qualifications linked to well-paid careers, while many Pacific kids are merely finishing, with a collection of credits.

“As much as those things keep our kids entertained, it keeps them down when it comes time to look for a job. When employers compare a collection of credits in multiple disciplines, against a student with S.T.E.M., it’s an uneven playing field for our students.”

It is also a barrier at the tertiary level with Auckland University requiring N.C.E.A. Level-3 with S.T.E.M. subjects.

“Auckland University is turning away Pacific students who have N.C.E.A. Level-3 with excellence, because English and Maths are missing. Our people are lured into this false sense of security, then have to go back school to do it properly, with a student loan.”

While for Te Wananga, a change in funding criteria is an issue.

“It’s no longer based on the number of students enrolled but is now ‘outcomes focused’,” said Mr Tuitasi.

“That means funding is assessed on the number of students completing their studies and either moving to higher levels or going into work.

“So for us we need more high caliber students coming through. But for that to happen, we need to go back upstream to early childhood, primary and secondary schools and change the settings. To do that, we must tinker and change the system which is exactly what this Pacific superhighway is set up to do.”

And one of the advantages TWOA’s Mangere campus offers is the provision of an excellent vehicle for those wanting to re-engage in Education, having been turned off by the mainstream system.

“And we have some excellent results from those who have re-engaged, particularly in our Trades and Police programmes,” Mr Tuitasi confirmed.

With no disrespect to Pacific educators, Mr Tuitasi believes his fresh pair of eyes has made it easier for him to see the gaps where Pacific students are falling through.

“Basically from my perspective I see that we’ve been failing many Pacific students for many years and I don’t see the positive results we should have expected by now,” he said.

“And what I’m really scared about, is that all our mainstream intervention strategies to date, have been about oiling the palagi system, as opposed to changing things around to achieve real positive results for our kids.”

The superhighway being planned will have three lanes according to Mr Tuitasi.

“When our students arrive at the starting line for a tertiary education, they would have come through our education superhighway, where they will find three lanes.

“The first lane is the T.W.O.A. lane. Second is our Pacific Wananga lane that we are creating, with the third lane, a clear pathway to the mainstream, for those who choose to be doctors, lawyers and accountants and so forth. However, I have challenging thoughts on those options.”

The superhighway “will have all the educational options, access and resourcing as on-ramps and off-ramps. While the whole superhighway, right from the start will have very clear signposts so no one should get lost.”

Mr Tuitasi outlined his big picture.

“One day, with the 55,000 people living in the Mangere area, we can go to expecting Pacific parents and give them a booklet that points out the Early Childhood services they should enroll their child. Those providers we show are linked to a certain group of primary schools, intermediate schools that are part of the Pacific superhighway.

“That is opposed to running the risk of their child, going through mainstream, where the child will come out with a bunch of credits, but not really leading to an employment pathway.”

The education superhighway is one of the many initiatives Mr Tuitasi has in the pipeline to improve Pacific achievement and economic outlook.