I’ve lost respect for Phil Goff: and it may be permanent

November 27, 2009

I really really really am disappointed – approaching disgusted – with Phil Goff. (Got the picture? This is not just a passing disappointment, this may become permanent.)

His resort to the Don Brash / Winston Peters tactic of dog whistling the racial fears and prejudices of mainstream New Zealand has set him back in my mind to “just another politician” status. This shows qualities of desperation rather than leadership to me. I no longer want this man to be a leader of this country.

As regular readers of this blog will have figured easily by now, I tend to vote on the left side of the political spectrum, and I admit I try to give Labour politicians the benefit of the doubt when they stuff up (as they often do). The chances of that vote going to Labour any time soon has diminished sharply following Goff’s decision to do a Winston.

I must admit that I’ve been rather ambivalent about Goff for years, but especially since he took over leadership of the party. The description of him as “wooden” seems pretty apt, and I have long ago turned off his mechanical way of speaking in distinct phrases when he’s delivering a prepared sound bite for TV News on some issue. But I was prepared to believe that his heart was in the right place. Not any more!


Unpleasant sub-text to the national education standards “debate”

November 26, 2009

I wrote back a few months ago about my concerns that the so-called debate over national education literacy and numeracy standards shows an underlying meanness of spirit. As the date for the forced implementation gets closer I see it getting worse rather than better.

I say “so-called” debate because Prime Minister John Key and Education Minister Anne Tolley are no longer listening to opposing arguments. Their standard answer now to any attempts at ongoing debate seems to be: “They’re saying nothing new”. We’re now in ‘final decision has been made, get over it’ mode.

What disturbs me most now, even more so than before, is their condescending defence that the very few people against national standards are teachers, unions and academics. And their purported reasons are, for teachers, that they and their unions have a vested interest and are afraid of accountability; and, for academics, well …. they don’t live in the real world.

This belittling of experts in the education field has rightly opened a rift between the government and those working at the blackboard. Such a rift is emphatically not good for the country or for our next generation. Making skilled professionals (for the most part, they are) feel unworthy to speak from experience and training is hardly going to lift standards, is it?

Recently I discussed this issue with an acquaintance who’s a highly qualified and long-serving electrician. He was taking the same line as Key – that as a parent he knows as much as (or even more than) his kids’ teachers about how schools should be run and what policies are best for his child. Teachers, he believed, were just trying to protect their patch.

We then turned that particular viewpoint around and looked at it from the other side. What would he think, I asked, if the government decided that domestic electrical installation standards were changed so that any homeowner could wire and rewire his own house without the need for a sparky? Wouldn’t that cut down on the amount of work he’d get?

Sure, less work, he said. But far worse would be the reduction in quality of homes if amateurs did the work. Would he object? You bet! But you have a vested interest. Perhaps, but that’s not the point – there’s pride in your work to consider. If the government didn’t listen but just kept on insisting that they and other ordinary people knew better than electricians? Insulting!

Another thought: What if before an electrician started a rewiring job he had to fill out reams of paperwork about standards that were clearly irrelevant to that particular job, and then afterward have an inspection team from the national standards board come in, check it, and publish all the results in the local paper?

By this stage, he was starting to see why it was better to trust true professionals (including teachers) to get on with their jobs within basic legal frameworks.

Like it or not, most teachers do know lots about what’s best for the education of our children, what won’t work and why. They have the training and the experience. Just like most electricians know how to most safely and efficiently wire a house, without the need to have their work constantly tested and fill in all the associated paperwork. And most police and firemen know best how to deal with dangerous situations and people. I could go on.

I repeat: belittling teachers (or any group with real expertise in their field) and attributing their concerns purely to self-interest does nothing to improve standards in this country, and in fact risks educational quality.

I know many, many non-teachers who are firmly against this national standards policy. It’s NOT just a clique of self-interested teachers who know no more than us amateurs. They are convinced by evidence as well as common sense that building an education system around publicly-scored standards is just too limiting in today’s evolving society.

To restate the reasons I and so many others are against this policy:

1. No matter how we try to prevent or downplay it, newspapers make lots of money out of publishing league tables – how schools rank against each other. And no matter how hard their better reporters try to explain how those league tables fail to tell the whole picture, their headline writers will never miss the chance to signal that some school somewhere is falling short. And, sadly, their readers find it so hard to see both sides of any such “school failing” story.

2. No matter how hard teachers try to lift their pupils up to standards, there are some (too many) whose earlier life experiences mean they may never reach “pass” state for their age on a national scale. To tell those children, year after year, that they’ve failed is hardly conducive to raising well-adjusted and happy contributors to community life.

3. Telling the world which children are failing doesn’t in itself achieve anything. Teachers already know, by and large, which kids are in trouble and most will do what they can, given the resources available to them, to make improvements. To make significant improvements in many cases requires huge extra resources, which our government is hardly going to fund sufficiently in today’s fiscal climate.  Instead, they will merely try to shame teachers into trying harder.

Naming and shaming those pupils and teachers may make a few lazy teachers sit up and try harder, but most are already doing what they can; shaming them will more likely make them more defensive.  Providing better resources to help them in their teaching techniques, and giving them smaller classes and more peer support, will achieve heaps more.

4. I agree with the sentiment that teaching in today’s world should be more about individual learning experiences for individual children, rather than a heavy focus on the three Rs. National standards and publicly notified results will inevitably lead to less diversity in learning experiences.

5. By all accounts – and I see no reason to question them – most teachers already tell parents everything that they want and need to know about their Johnny’s progress in core subjects. Contrary to what Tolley and Key keep contending, there is no conspiracy for teachers to hide information from parents – just as my electrician friend never tries to withhold technical information from his customers about a house he’s rewired.


Observations on racism and Hone Harawira’s outburst

November 19, 2009

I’ve pondered the issues and events around Hone Harawira’s run-in with most of white New Zealand and, it seems, many Maori as well (specially his own Maori Party) and I’ve found it very hard to put together a coherent single position. I guess that could be put down to profound ambivalence on many aspects.

What has concerned me most though, from a pakeha perspective, is the way in which events – particularly Hone’s angry email message and his reaction to the resultant publicity – have thrown up all sorts of side issues and exposed underlying attitudes, like lifting a large garden rock to observe the creatures beneath.

In the workplace I was inhabiting at the time of the radio announcement, the reaction was pure venom, as if Hone had just walked in the office and thrown fresh excrement at all the white occupants. Much comment then and since has centred on the two popular themes, summarised as: “he should be sacked” (no-one suggested by whom and from what), and “if a white person said those things they would be crucified”. Well, sorry, but I hear the sort of language that Hone used every second day around here.

I am challenged by Hone’s comments and attitudes, but I’m afraid I can’t seem to be able to work up any real anger about it. And when I try to explore if he makes me feel offended, I find myself becoming more offended by people’s reactions to him than by Hone himself.

As I said, I have no single coherent position to put here. I’ve read several good commentators and columnists who have placed the whole (on-going) episode into some sensible political and social perspective, but for my part I’ve only come up with some observations about various facets. Here goes.

My first arose from the coincidence that both Harawira and Rodney Hide got into trouble with their mouths around the same time. Hide admitted it in his seemingly honest apology to the nation: How easy it is to let your position and status, as a politician with your hands on power, go to your head. I wouldn’t want to get too judgmental here, because I can easily imagine getting a bit of strut into my stride if I had my every word listened to and analysed, and perhaps feared, on a regular basis!

Both men need to learn the responsibilities that go with power, that a dash of humility can go a long way, and that posturing rarely produces lasting and worthwhile results.

Then there was the language Harawira used. As I said above, I hear that stuff every second day, and you’ll hear worse every Friday night on the brilliant television comedy show, 7 Days. Sure, we’d like to think that politicians were somehow one level up in their use of language, but they are human and have been subject over the years to a variety of sources of crude talk. I only have to listen to my neighbours shouting at their kids in expletives to wonder how those kids could possibly end up not using the same language as standard adult talk.

And we do need to remember that Hone’s expletive-laden outburst was part of a private email.

There has also been comment about Hone’s liberal use of vernacular slang and phrases, and in particular that Labour leader Phil Goff should be lined up to be shot for his support of the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Again, I’ve heard this used plenty of times by all manner of people who, like Hone, don’t mean it in any literal sense. You know: “Look at the way Joe treats his dog, he should be shot for it”, or “Those boy racers kept me awake all last night – I’d like to line them all up against a wall and shoot the lot”. It’s the sort of phrase you use in anger. It’s a metaphor. Get over it! (Fortunately Phil Goff recognised it as such and didn’t hire himself bodyguards as a result.)

Then there’s the small matter of Hone being basically correct on historical matters. Set aside the language and the association of the race relations issue with the Paris trip, and what he’s saying is an accurate representation of historic events.

One facet of the issue that has amused (as well as dismayed) me is the reaction of the so called anti-PC brigade, those who say people should be able to say what they think, call a spade a spade, regardless of who may be offended. When they themselves are offended by a spade being called thus, one of the first things they call for is the Race Relations Conciliator to take action against Harawira!! (Wow, that’s classy!)

Freedom of speech is an important feature of a healthy democracy, especially if it’s in private correspondence. How many pakeha who are currently venting against Harawira and Maori in general have never made offensive comments about them in private? Sure, Hone gave permission to publicise his email, but my reading of his reasons for doing so were not that he wanted it to be public and to offend, but rather that he didn’t want to follow the normal practice of expressing anger and disgust privately but sweet-talking about the same issue in public – which most politicians normally do. At least you cannot accuse Harawira of being two-faced, you know where he stands.

My reaction to the common attitudes expressed in many of the country’s Letters to the Editor pages over the past week goes as follows:

Whether it’s blatant racism, cultural arrogance or just plain ignorance, I’m not sure. But the common theme – that Maori should get over the wrongs done to them in ancient and recent history and be thankful for all the good things that the big white man has brought to them – stinks of paternalism, condescension and …. well, it simply stinks.

White settlers did not bring with them television, cars, iPods and shopping malls. These so-called advances grew up in an already mixed society, often imported from countries with populations of many races and colours.

As I see it, the sub-text of the Treaty of Waitangi is that both founding cultures accept, respect and value each other’s views and offerings, with no sense that one is intrinsically better than the other, and that both equally have contributions to make to New Zealand’s future.

It’s fine to express opinions about Hone’s place and worth in politics, but don’t use his actions as a stick to strike out at all things Maori.

SO how do I see Hone Harawira now? I feel some sadness that such a strong and driven man can allow his sense of victimhood, justifiable or not, to control so much of his life. Clearly he believes in his message and mission strongly, but he’s missing half of the message.

He could take Ranginui Walker and Pita Sharples as his role models – it’s OK to be angry and driven and express strong opinions, but posturing and being abusive doesn’t get you very far and tend to make things worse in the long run.

If he’s representing his electorate and many of them think this way, then Hone has a duty to work with them and lead them to a better relationship with pakeha, even when pakeha act badly to him.

He should follow the example set for my wife and me (and a few other tourists) by the Maori tour guide who showed us around Waitangi last year. We could tell he had strong views, he knew his history and he knew the people involved. But he didn’t use the hour-long tour to harangue us or to preach. He applied his quiet charm, his mana, and gently led and educated us to see his perspective and the history and current relationship as local Maori see it. And it worked!

And if my thoughts sound like yet another example of patronising racism, then I’m sorry ..


Vatican’s tempting offer to Anglicans is beyond satire

November 11, 2009

I’m still laughing having read a news report this morning that the Pope has made it easy for disaffected Anglicans to become Catholics while retaining their “Anglican perks” (they called it their “Anglican heritage”).

If I wanted to write a satirical piece about the religion free market I couldn’t possibly do a funnier job. If it wasn’t for the fact that these guys (yes, they’re men) are actually serious then I would file it in the Chuckle-for-the-Day bin.

If these tradition-bound church leaders ever want to be relevant in today’s world, they need to have a good look at some of these stupid rules and the associated game playing.

Assuming that The Times is reporting accurately, here are a couple of the decisions and rules that have been made.

Married Anglican clergy will be allowed to train for the priesthood in seminaries set up within the new Anglican “Ordinariates” (whatever that is) as long as their marital status is not “irregular”.

There is no change to the Vatican’s line on priestly celibacy.  But former Catholic priest who left the church to marry and subsequently became Anglican clergy will not be permitted to return to Catholicism under these new rules.

Sounds like some sort of industrial relations rule that forbids a worker who takes a voluntary redundancy payment from ever returning to work at the same place or working for the competition. (We’ll teach the selfish bugger!) Where is the love, the compassion, the understanding in this? It’s just a measure to protect the Vatican’s belief in its own importance and power.

A spokesman for one of the dissident Anglican groups was quoted in The Times as saying that he thought the offer from Rome was “extremely generous”. Interpretation: “Sounds like a good deal to me – I’ll come out ahead on this. Better take it before the price goes up.”

What next? A free set of steak knives if you swap codes before Christmas? Convert one of your children for free if both you and your wife change providers.

This whole travesty looks to me like one of those deals you see offered by a telecommunications company trying to lure dissatisfied customers from a competitor, providing ways for them to retain their privileges and achieve compatibility between technologies.

Now, having written this, I’ve stopped laughing and feel a bit sad. This nonsense shows what formalised, institutional religion can do to you.


Grow up and look for constructive dialogue with Fiji

November 5, 2009

I’m feeling more than a little embarrassed by New Zealand’s posture in the current little spat over the expulsion of our diplomat in Fiji.

Having consequently sent home the Fiji government’s representative here, our foreign minister Murray McCully tells us that this sort of “tit for tat” response is “sort of standard” in this type of situation. You could almost hear him shrugging his shoulders as he spoke. Ho hum.

I’d kinda hoped that we may have grown up a bit since these sorts of diplomatic games were taken seriously back in Cold War days and before. But no; we’re back in the playground retaliating for slights on our boyhood. You expel ours and we’ll kick yours out. Nah nah nah! So there! We’re tougher than you.

As well as the embarrassment factor, I’m also saddened and disappointed. Our tough-guy posturing over the Fiji “regime” (as we love to call it – no use of “government” allowed) over the past couple of years since the coup appears to have produced exactly nothing. Zip.

We love to think that beating our chests and talking down to those brown idiots (not the words I would choose) would make them change their minds immediately, call elections and revert to our wonderful (also not the adjective I would use) western-style democracy.

Instead, it seems pretty obvious that all we’ve achieved has been to harden the Fijian rulers’ resolve, antagonise them, and lessen the possibility of the two countries getting on again for many years to come.

No matter how affronted some of us may feel about Fiji’s latest actions, playing tit for tat is only going to satisfy the visceral need for revenge against uncivilised upstarts. It will not in any way help to develop longer term constructive relationships which should be New Zealand’s medium- and long-term priority.

And the longer these immature games (I was going to call them strategic games, but I doubt there’s much adult strategy involved) continue, any satisfactory and sustainable solution stretches further into the distance.

See also earlier comments on Fiji here.