Chris Hipkins, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Chris Hipkins, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | ... | 60

2797 posts

Uber Geek

#3085313 6-Jun-2023 08:49

On2or3wheels:

johno1234:

Universities are cancelling courses and laying off staff.

This often happens during times of low unemployment. Why have a loan when you can go straight into a job.
It might also show wages are reasonable as well without upskilling, or that more people are getting a trade that the country needs.

Some might say this sounds fine if they don't want to put a political spin on it.

If you can cite some examples of our universities cutting staff and courses due to low unemployment I'd be interested to see them. Meanwhile, Te Pukenga has a $63mil deficit at the same time as shedding hundreds of jobs, and our universities are simultaneously shedding staff due to lack of cash. There's a 0.9% roll reduction at Otago university.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3085330 6-Jun-2023 09:37

johno1234:

If you can cite some examples of our universities cutting staff and courses due to low unemployment I'd be interested to see them. Meanwhile, Te Pukenga has a $63mil deficit at the same time as shedding hundreds of jobs, and our universities are simultaneously shedding staff due to lack of cash. There's a 0.9% roll reduction at Otago university.

There is plenty of academic research globally that show the high correlation between unemployment and student enrollments.

IMHO I think trades and universities should be funded on a "through the cycle" basis to take into account economic variations. How exactly one does that is more difficult (average FTE enrolments over 6 years/8 years???). But, like healthcare should be, all training institutions should be on common systems with consistent policies on IT, payroll etc etc (not necessarily centralised but if it makes sense then do so).

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

On2or3wheels

195 posts

Master Geek

#3085342 6-Jun-2023 09:59

GV27:

"Where are the parents" is usually the kind of thing you hear from those on the right looking for someone to blame for youth crime.

You don't usually hear it trying to defend a PM with an awful track record in actually achieving anything who was promoted to lead a party that has struggled with accountability for their entire time in government.

You didn't answer the question. So you think parent's hold no responsibility for school attendance rates?

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3085367 6-Jun-2023 10:41

On2or3wheels:

johno1234:

Generally, school educational achievement and attendance are at or near all time lows. All these issues will take a long, long time to remedy.

Who presided over the disasters above? The name on this thread.

And you don't think parents have anything to do with this?

Yes they most certainly do. However the dumbing down/experimentation that has occurred in our education system along with everyone getting a prize just for turning up (taking away the incentive to compete and do better) have had a very detrimental effect on overall education outcomes.

We seem to educate for the lowest common denominator rather than encouraging students to excel as that may hurt the feelings of anyone who doesn't excel.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#3085368 6-Jun-2023 10:42

On2or3wheels:

You didn't answer the question. So you think parent's hold no responsibility for school attendance rates?

Oh, is it an actual question? It comes off as kneejerk whataboutism.

But sure, I'll bite. Yes, the parents home some responsibility. But so does the Minister who is literally in charge of this portfolio, who seems to be more interested in delaying and defusing bad news until she has an announcement to go alongside it, and who is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to actually succeed at their job, not fail at the basics of it.

On2or3wheels

195 posts

Master Geek

#3085538 6-Jun-2023 15:23

GV27:

But sure, I'll bite. Yes, the parents home some responsibility. But so does the Minister who is literally in charge of this portfolio, who seems to be more interested in delaying and defusing bad news until she has an announcement to go alongside it, and who is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to actually succeed at their job, not fail at the basics of it.

I think you'll find that's not how it works, ONE Minister responsible for getting all the children in the country to school with only a teeny tiny bit of responsibility from the parents.

I'm not trying to defend one Minister here, but I'm sick of people blaming everything on someone else & or thinking a single person in government can & should fix everything.
Surely a minister only guides the relevant government department, there's plenty of incompetent people between them & the front lines!

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#3085580 6-Jun-2023 15:37

On2or3wheels:

I think you'll find that's not how it works, ONE Minister responsible for getting all the children in the country to school with only a teeny tiny bit of responsibility from the parents.

I'm not trying to defend one Minister here, but I'm sick of people blaming everything on someone else & or thinking a single person in government can & should fix everything.
Surely a minister only guides the relevant government department, there's plenty of incompetent people between them & the front lines!

Asking the Minister to not mislead parliament or gaslight people about attendance figures or take responsibility for their own portfolio is now 'blaming everyone else'.

Jan, is that you?

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3085581 6-Jun-2023 15:37

On2or3wheels:

I think you'll find that's not how it works, ONE Minister responsible for getting all the children in the country to school with only a teeny tiny bit of responsibility from the parents.

I'm not trying to defend one Minister here, but I'm sick of people blaming everything on someone else & or thinking a single person in government can & should fix everything.
Surely a minister only guides the relevant government department, there's plenty of incompetent people between them & the front lines!

Absenteeism is a community problem. But no-one is willing to call out non-attendees as thet did in the past. At high school, if we turned up at the dairy down the road then the school heard about it. Today no one bats an eyelid at a child in school uniform in a shopping mall. Collective community does embrace its responsibility like it used to.

But the Minister is responsible for policy settings and ensuring Ministry staff realise and execute the policy. Are policy settings wrong? Should schools be funded by attendance rather than enrollment? Should there be carrot and stick around benefits? Things like loss of WFF for non-attendance? 125% of WFF funding for attendance >XX%? Do charter schools need to come back? All these things have unintended consequences, are political footballs and I dont think anyone has suggested a "right" approach so I'm not sitting anywhere on the political spectrum for this but I will say that the existing approach/attitude that has been hanging around for the last 6+ years is working.

How do we get the kids back in the classroom? Evidence shows how importance attendance is but it seems like no political party is taking it as seriously as it is.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3085587 6-Jun-2023 15:45

GV27:

Asking the Minister to not mislead parliament or gaslight people about attendance figures or take responsibility for their own portfolio is now 'blaming everyone else'.

Jan, is that you?

I expected more from a former principal - someone who has been at the coalface, knows what dealing with the MoE is like and should have good ideas about how to change things for the better for teachers and students. Woefully out of her depth.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3085695 6-Jun-2023 18:21

ockel:

Absenteeism is a community problem. But no-one is willing to call out non-attendees as thet did in the past. At high school, if we turned up at the dairy down the road then the school heard about it. Today no one bats an eyelid at a child in school uniform in a shopping mall. Collective community does embrace its responsibility like it used to.

But the Minister is responsible for policy settings and ensuring Ministry staff realise and execute the policy. Are policy settings wrong?

The gap here is the Minister, down to the Principal. But both don't send the kids to school, the parents do. Is the Minister an idiot or is the principal an idiot? Both are not. Neither are the vast majority of parents. But if some parents take the easy route, why blame the Minister or the Principal or most parents? I have no idea where truancy sits these days, but I'd argue its some parents. They need to be hit hard. Humans need air, water and food, young ones need education as well.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3085715 6-Jun-2023 19:38

tdgeek:

The gap here is the Minister, down to the Principal. But both don't send the kids to school, the parents do. Is the Minister an idiot or is the principal an idiot? Both are not. Neither are the vast majority of parents. But if some parents take the easy route, why blame the Minister or the Principal or most parents? I have no idea where truancy sits these days, but I'd argue its some parents. They need to be hit hard. Humans need air, water and food, young ones need education as well.

So how do you propose to get these kids to school. Bearing in mind that the truancy stats skew decile 1-4 schools and skew towards non-pakeha/non-asian. Are you going to punish those families whose kids dont turn up to school (and both parents work so cant drop off/pick up). If you punish the family financially then are you going to see a rise in domestic violence as an unintended consequence? Will you incentivise the families (and thus penalise the current compliant families?) - and if so how? Free warriors tickets or supermarket vouchers (thank you census dodgers).

Shouldnt the schools be funded based on attendance rather than enrolment? If you fund on enrollment then the school has no incentive for the child to attend - in fact perversely they benefit if the child doesnt attend cos they get the funding to use to teach less kids.

What policy would YOU write?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3085719 6-Jun-2023 19:45

Truancy and attendance are just two different things getting mixed up here.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3085728 6-Jun-2023 20:09

ockel:

So how do you propose to get these kids to school. Bearing in mind that the truancy stats skew decile 1-4 schools and skew towards non-pakeha/non-asian. Are you going to punish those families whose kids dont turn up to school (and both parents work so cant drop off/pick up). If you punish the family financially then are you going to see a rise in domestic violence as an unintended consequence? Will you incentivise the families (and thus penalise the current compliant families?) - and if so how? Free warriors tickets or supermarket vouchers (thank you census dodgers).

Shouldnt the schools be funded based on attendance rather than enrolment? If you fund on enrollment then the school has no incentive for the child to attend - in fact perversely they benefit if the child doesnt attend cos they get the funding to use to teach less kids.

What policy would YOU write?

Based on your post, fund on attendance. Then what? "those families whose kids dont turn up to school (and both parents work so cant drop off/pick up" Still applies

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3085835 7-Jun-2023 08:50

tdgeek:

Based on your post, fund on attendance. Then what? "those families whose kids dont turn up to school (and both parents work so cant drop off/pick up" Still applies

I'm not sure I explained myself.

Schools are funded on the number of FTE enrolled in schools. Simplistically (given Decile 1 and funded more than Decile 10) this equates to a Primary school receiving ~$8,200 per student per year and a secondary school receiving $10,700 per year. For example if you cut a schools funding when a child becomes a chronic truant (as defined as 3 days missed in 10 school days, or roughly 70% attendance) or even halved the funding when a child is truant (as defined as less than 80% attendance) then the school is motivated to take action. This could range from having the parents and child having meetings with the senior school staff to understand the problem thru to the school (or schools) employing a dedicated resource (not necessarily a truancy officer) to address the problem.

In Term 4 last year we had 100,000 chronic truants (12.4%) and 195,000 (23.8%) children that had attendance rates lower than 80%. These are not small numbers given our school population. The Government is paying $1.75bn for children that dont regularly turn up to school.

The Government has committed to spending $74m on attendance officers - thats a big number for 82 attendance officers but a drop in the bucket compared to $1.75bn. Even worse, since the policy was announced in February only one additional attendance officer was employed by May.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#3088739 12-Jun-2023 06:44

Greens have launched a wealth tax - and given Hipkins is going to need the Greens, it's going to be an interesting election.

Interesting though, that they have doubled their thresholds - from $1m to $2m per person.

Sensible in that it no longer captures the average Auckland home if it is owned mortgage-free, but given it is the same core leadership group as last time, I would like to know why they've a) blown this threshold out by 100% (i.e. the old one an unworkable activist rallying cry after all) and b) why they propose a huge increase in this from last election, but no real adjustment to tax rates (new thresholds at the old, unindexed rates posing as tax reform is lazy).

As for taxing 'wealth in trusts' at 1.5% p.a. - there's this stupid obsession with our prevalence of trusts being some sort of tax dodge and personal experience tells me that the trusts I've seen are either asset protection (trading liability or an attempted RPA safety valve) or estate-planning (holiday homes the whole family has used for generations) etc.

The fact the Greens still try and sloganeer their way to justifying this kind of thing makes me think it's not something they're actually serious about but they're going to be in a position of real power come election night and imported 'eat the rich' talking points are a crappy basis for tax policy.

1 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | ... | 60