NEWS media love an anniversary, so much was made of the first year of the new National Government. In this series of articles, NewsWire looks at some of the big issues - foreshore and seabed, national standards for schools, climate change, Rugby World Cup, unemployment - the Key Government faces as it moves into its second stage:

OPINION: Behind smiles, how do Nats measure up?

By Kylie Klein – Nixon

WITH its first year over, the National Government can rightly claim to have had its collective nose to the grindstone.

In the first 100 days, it kept election promises, pushed through legislation and delivered a small tax cut, all while guiding the country through the white-knuckle economic ride brought on by the recession.

New Prime Minister John Key smoothed over situations that would have left other new leaders red-faced and flustered.  He was calm, pleasant, no nonsense – and we like him for it.

But does John Key’s Mr Nice Guy Prime Minister accurately reflect the nature of the policies we’ve seen delivered by his government so far?

In education, Key promised better standards, higher literacy rates and better results in our struggling schools. National delivered the National Standards: Reporting to Parents scheme.

Parents love it, but at the whiteboard face disgruntled teachers are worried over what they see as a return to Victorian teaching practices, rote learning and teaching to fit tests.

Their union, the New Zealand Education Institute, also complains of a complete lack of consultation with teachers – the people who will have to implement the scheme and who they say have a better idea of what’s going on in our national school rooms than Education Minister Anne Tolley.

And yet the New Zealand Education Institute struggles to find support amongst parents, who seem tempted by the idea that the scheme will ensure their kids are learning the three Rs and not wasting any more time on that arts and crafts baloney.

Forgetting, of course, that most of them managed to learn how to string a sentence together and make papier mache kiwis in the system they’re now all for shelving.

Next year, Key may find his government facing strike action from teachers genuinely concerned about the quality of teaching the standards allow them to deliver.

If parents start to question the standards too, Key will have to be careful the education dissatisfaction does not run over into election year if he wants to keep his current polling numbers.

National Standards is not the only initiative some of us are having trouble getting our heads around.

On the issues of climate, Key said: “Any political party with an eye to New Zealand’s future success must pursue policies that protect and promote our environmental assets.”

Say “hello” to the emissions trading scheme: a watered down, confusing package which seems to shift the onus of payment from businesses doing to polluting to an already financially stretched public.

Opposition Leader Phil Goff estimates that the new emissions trading scheme will cost the New Zealand taxpayer almost $92,000 a household, three times as much as we were given in the April tax cuts.

We’d better hope he’s wrong.

But who can say?  The scheme is so convoluted and arcane that the purpose of it seems entirely lost. How exactly will the shifting of money from one hand to the other fix the environment?

More trees means cleaner air, but if polluting businesses don’t have a financial incentive to clean up their acts anyway, then why would they? The average tidy Kiwi might have a hard time getting his or her head around that one.

And functional emissions trading scheme will be small comfort to the thousands of climate refugees New Zealand may be forced to accept and provide for when islands in the Pacific start disappearing.  This is an issue Key has never addressed.

The purpose of the ET scheme is to give our country a better carbon footprint, one in keeping with international standards.

If it doesn’t work and we can’t lessen our carbon footprint, how will we retain our clean green image?  Isn’t that status a national taonga? Shouldn’t protecting clean green New Zealand be of primary concern to the Minister of Tourism?

As Minister of Tourism, Key must balance the needs of small business with income generated by making New Zealand an attractive venue for big international events such as the Rugby World Cup.  That’s what the Labour-enacted Events Management Act is all about.

But is the domestic tourism industry being lulled by big symbolic gestures made by John Key or is he actually doing a good job for tourism?

Small tourism operators generally seem happy with him, particularly by the Prime Minister’s appearances at industry events, but is big business winning out more than many of them realise?

The Dominion Post reported that tickets are the only source of revenue New Zealand will recoup from the rugby world cup. Incomes from sponsorship and broadcasting rights have been snapped up by the International Rugby Board.

So at the end of the day, is the average New Zealander really winning from the cup, the country’s biggest tourism draw card in the current Government’s first term?

It’s not just the punters who’re losing out.  Small tour operators can’t tie in with the event, and local businesses will be left out in the cold by official sponsors allowed to dominate five kilometre advertising “clean zones” around the stadiums.

Perhaps that’s just the way the cookie crumbles when you’re hosting a major sporting event?  Get too picky over the rules and the IRB will pack up and go elsewhere – which happened with our former joint bid with Australia, before we had the Major Event Management Act in place.

More tourism dollars are heading overseas than many people may realise.

The Dom Post reported that about half of the tickets for the final will go straight to VIPs and sponsors at the discretion of the International Rugby Board. “New Zealand’s” world cup indeed…

Rugby woes aside, as a nation we are stronger and more united.

The news that National accepts the recommendation of the ministerial review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to repeal the nation’s most misunderstood and loathed law was met with relief.

Fulfilment of the Nat’s promise to the Maori Party will see the law replaced, but no one is very clear on what with or what a law will look like that recognises Maori mana whenua over the coast and yet keeps those places open to all New Zealanders

National has been very quiet on the subject since the big announcement the act is on its way out. Key may find the easy part is long behind him when it comes time to look for a consensus on policy where this issue is concerned.

Health reforms look like a more obvious success story for the Key Government, with $700 million supposedly moved from administration and bureaucracy to front line services and elective surgery, long-awaited hip replacements and cataract surgery that will improve the lives of thousands of New Zealanders.

But it’s been culled from preventative measures, from front line mental health services, Maori and Pacific Island outreach programmes and others.

The result of this could be a health underclass: sections of the community, comprised of the most vulnerable, for whom hospital emergency rooms are a first choice, who do not access health professionals at all until the situation as become so serious there is no other option.

What will our health system look like when those who suffer the most cannot get preventative and front line assistance before their illnesses become chronic?

How over-stretched will our hospitals become – with doctors and nurses also carrying some of the administrative burden too now –when those who may have avoided a costly hospital stay start taking up beds?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul in the health sector will only cover cracks in an ailing system for so long.

Closer to the political home, bureaucratic belts were tightened in the Government drive to cut waste and streamline services, and dozens of civil servants (rather than thousands, as first feared) have been made redundant. Perhaps unexpectedly, not all of them are unhappy about it.

At the same time, the number of Beehive staff earning over $100,000 doubled.  The Nats say it’s indicative of the number of staff now expected to do not only their own work, but that of their former colleagues also.

But wouldn’t it be better to have two people on a reasonable wage than a couple on a way-above-average wage, retaining the experience and knowledge of civil servants who have been in the jobs longest and still cost the taxpayer as much as over-worked civil staffers we now seem to have?

Your nana would call that kind of thing a false economy.

Could there be a groundswell of unhappiness behind the gloss of this new Government – urban Maori ignored, small business people left out in the cold, the most vulnerable groups with even less access to health advice and outreach programmes, education downscaled and cut?

The next year will answer the question. We’ll have more money in our pockets – but we’ll probably have more to spend it on.

Foreshore and Seabed Act repeal – a tidal wave of change

The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is on the way out, but will the future framework close the race debate? MELISSA MCDONALD analyses the impact of the review and asks what’s next for the nation and iwi:

AS promised in National’s confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party, a ministerial review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act began in July, 2009.

The review panel, made up of independent experts and spearheaded by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, delivered a report recommending a repeal of the act.

The review panel got 580 submissions from iwi, hapu and other interest groups.

Of the iwi and interest groups consulted, 85% called for a repeal, 10% called for an amendment to the current legislation and only 5% said there should be no change at all.

Many submitters also put forward their desire for an entirely new law based on a better understanding of the issues.

Indigenous law experts Claire Charters (left) and Andrew Erueti have long opposed the act on the grounds that free, prior and informed consent of Maori was not given before the legislation was enacted.

They say a case may now exist for redress or compensation for hapu and iwi, as a matter of international law.

“If hapu or iwi are deprived of their property interests in the foreshore and seabed, adequate redress is required in the form of property interests of equal quality and value and, only if that is not possible, compensation.”

Iwi in particular were opposed to the act, stating that it infringed on “mana whenua” (customary authority exercised by an iwi or hapu in an area) and “mana moana” (iwi rights to fisheries) (see backgrounder).

The level of cross-party support for change, however, is not clear.

Dr Michael Cullen’s submission does not explicitly call for repeal, although it recommends restoration of the Maori right to take claims of customary title to the Maori Land Court.

The submission also recommends that customary title to the coast should not be transferable – it should never become freehold, saleable land.

This perhaps illustrates the types of changes to the legislation Labour Party leader Phil Goff suggested in his speech to Grey Power.

Ben Thomas, press secretary for the Attorney-General, says Prime Minister John Key wants a broad consensus across all political parties.

He says ACT party leaders and the Labour shadow Attorney General, David Parker, were briefed before the announcement, although the United Future party did not wish to be included in the briefing.

The Green Party was not briefed.

Prior to the introduction of the act, ACT was strongly opposed to it on the grounds that it contravened private property rights, a citizen’s right to go to court and respect for continuous ownership and occupation.

The Ministry of Justice must now formulate new policy, but is not obliged to consider all recommendations from the review.

“ [The Prime Minister] hopes a new law will be in place by the end of next year,” says Ben Thomas.

Dr Pita Sharples, whose Maori Party partially came into being to see the act repealed, says: “The [ministerial review] report concluded that the Act severely discriminated against Maori in removing the right to test customary rights claims via the courts.”

The Maori Party would like to see a full repeal of the act, but has not publicly commented on what they would like to replace it with.

United Future leader Peter Dunne says the act should be replaced with something that legislates for a public domain in the intertidal area, with usage and access available for both Maori and Pakeha.

“The last five years have been destabilising for the nation, and the fact that Labour’s legislation had worked out okay was immaterial,” says Dunne.

The current Act was created by “division, doubt and tension where it didn’t need to be”.

On her blog, Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei says the current legislation is damaging: “The progressive left must rebuild links with the diverse communities who are suffering under this Government, and that includes whanau and hapu.”

Review Panel member Richard Boast says there are only two ways to resolve the debate and uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: “Any resolution from now on has to be bicultural and/or involve Crown and iwi.”

John Mitchell, former spokesman for Ngati Apa, says the original 2003 Court of Appeal judgement – which prompted the Labour Government to create the Foreshore and Seabed Act a year later – made it clear to iwi that their rights were still in existence.

He would like new legislation to reflect that.

“The thing that created a lot of passion was that the Government moved very quickly to thwart [iwi] rights. People were so absolutely outraged.”

The picture emerging is one of legislation where Maori customary rights are more than merely recognised, but not at the expense of the Kiwi “open beaches” ideal.

With so much riding on what will replace the current legislation, it is still murky who exactly will own what and under what kind of framework.

Boast acknowledges there will still be flaws, regardless of whether a bicultural panel is set up or whether the Crown and iwi engage directly in negotiation.

“There is no guarantee that a bicultural panel would work, I suppose. But we have been able to work out a national settlement over fisheries, so there’s no cause to be unduly pessimistic.”

Boast is wary, however, of going down the road of a “claims fest” via the Maori Land Court.

“To deal with the matter by way of particularised claims in the Maori Land Court or in the High Court would be immensely difficult and time-consuming.”

He says there are still many legal traps in the way, even if the Maori Land Court was still the appropriate decision-making body in the future.

“One problem is defining precisely what legal principles should apply. But the even more difficult problem is the legal effect of particular and local ‘acts of extinguishment’ – old purchase deeds, harbour board legislation and so forth.

“Each bit of coast would be subject to different outcomes, depending on what had gone on locally. So we thought the only option is a national statutory settlement, as with fisheries.”

Most iwi consulted were not happy that they currently have to prove they have customary title, says Boast.

“The current act purports to be a national settlement as well, but it obviously is not working. No customary rights orders, for instance, have been made at all. Most Maori groups who spoke to us said the thresholds in the act were too high and almost impossibly difficult to meet.”

Shadow Attorney-General David Parker says the route used towards a better future for both Maori and the public is a semantic one, but that a repeal is definitely needed.

“The important question to ask is what are the changes that will be made?

“The review panel, the National Party and the Maori Party all now seem to agree with the Labour Party position that legislation is necessary to guarantee public access.

“The existing Foreshore and Seabed Act achieves that. If it is repealed, new legislation to that effect would be required.”

Parker says part of the package would involve reshaping the Maori Land Courts under the Maori Land (Te Ture Whenua) Act 2003.

“Under existing law governing the Maori Land Court, it is possible to convert customary land titles into Maori freehold land and for it to be sold.”

He says Ngati Porou have already benefited from negotiating with the Crown.

“Ngati Porou pushed ahead with their claims under the current law. Prior to the election, Ngati Porou signed an agreement with the Government, and legislation to give effect to that agreement was introduced into Parliament. “

Parker says the progress made by Ngati Porou under the current law may undermine the need for an extensive overhaul.

“Ngati Porou probably have the most extensive foreshore and seabed rights in NZ. If they believe their rights have been fairly dealt with under the current legislation, then claims by the Maori Party that the current Act is unworkable or causes great injustice must be exaggerated.”

Achieving broad consensus for repeal amongst the major political parties of National, Labour and the Maori Party seems likely.

Michael Cullen’s submission during the review reiterates Labour’s acknowledgment of anomalies under the current act and the need for a repeal so customary title may be tested again.

In a speech by Phil Goff to Grey Power in Palmerston North on November 26, he says that most people accept the current foreshore and seabed rules are a good foundation for moving forward.

“Re-opening the foreshore and seabed issues by repealing the legislation might be just a cynical move by National and the Maori Party to create the perception of change.”

However Metiria Turei, has criticised Goff’s statement as divisive.

“Labour has never understood the impact of their utter rejection of Maori over the foreshore. They have never understood the seriousness of slamming the door in the face of whanau and hapü over the issue.”

The debate of repeal goes beyond mere legal questions, as it will affect all New Zealanders.

Questions of fairness and justice about land boundaries held by iwi and citizens unavoidably strikes at the very core of New Zealand society, and what values are held by a government of the day.

The debate is only beginning.

Foreshore and Seabed Act – from mussel farm to Beehive

The debate on the Foreshore and Seabed Act has begun again, but the issue is far more complex and long in the tooth than the Appeal Court decision that lit the fire in 2003. KYLIE KLEIN-NIXON backgrounds the issues:

On the face of it, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 seems wholly derived from political policies. But it is also the result of a drawn-out process through the courts that tested several pieces of legislation and long-standing legal precedents.

Now Key says the act must be replaced with something new and it has been suggested that a return to some of the original legislation could be a further option.

So how did that original legislation work, and what happened to undermine it in 2004?

It starts with the Appeal Court, right?

No.  It starts with mussel farming – specifically the rejection by Marlborough District Council of applications for mussel farm licences by local iwi.

In 1997, Te Tau Ihu o Nga Waka a Maui, a group of tribes from the top of the South Island and the south of the North Island, began collecting evidence that commercial access to their rohe moana (traditional area of food gathering) and the lucrative Marlborough Sounds aquaculture industry was being restricted.

The complaint by Te Tauihu o Nga Waka (comprised of Ngati Apa ki te Waimoana, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa, Rangitane, Te Atiawa) was over the management of the Sounds’ marine environment, which they felt had a negative impact on their customary fishing rights.

Customary rights and title?

For Maori, customary rights mean recognition of “mana whenua” (a spiritual and physical connection to the land), maintaining mana and rangatiratanga (authority in both a spiritual and actual sense) over an area, and acknowledging customary practices such as fishing, gathering and living in it.

Customary title defines the manner in which land belongs to Maori – it refers to land held communally and defines the area within which Maori practise customary activities.

It is not a “freehold title” (a Crown-granted deed which allows division and sale of land) but under certain circumstances (see below) may be converted to freehold.

Te Tau Ihu o Nga Waka hoped legally defining their customary title over Sounds foreshore and seabed would give them leverage to negotiate a slice of the area’s $50 million aquaculture haul.

They also wanted to be consulted on the protection of the fragile environment.

Was it simply a local government issue?

Not really. The Resource Management and the Local Government Acts make provision for council consultation with Maori in situations which may have an impact on customary practices and rights, but local iwi felt they were largely ignored by a council catering to the area’s 95% Pakeha majority.

In his book Struggle Without End, Auckland University’s Professor Ranginui Walker says Maori under-representation in local government at the time meant those acts became “dead letters”.

In 1995, only 3.5% of those elected to local councils were Maori.

He wrote: “These frustrations and clashes with local government are symptomatic of marginalisation of Maori in local government.”

The iwi confederation would have to go higher if they wanted a definitive ruling on their claim to “ownership” through customary title of the foreshore and seabed.

But the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees the pre-existing customary rights of iwi and hapu to their fisheries, as well as lands and forests.

Te Tau Ihu o Nga Waka still had a case. In effect, they would have to legally test whether or not they still held a customary title to the foreshore and seabed of the Sounds under the Treaty of Waitangi.

How did they do that?

Te Tauihu o Nga Waka took their case to the Maori Land Court.

At the time, Te Tau Ihu o Nga Waka’s case, The Crown v Ngati Apa, seemed unspectacular.

Speaking to the NZ Herald in 2004, Labour Party MP Shane Jones, former chair of the Waitangi Fisheries Commission, said: “It’s honest to say none of us had any idea those forays into the Maori Land Court would end in such spectacular fashion.”

A sign the court’s finding could have wider ramifications came when the Crown attempted to stop the case being heard on the grounds that the Maori Land Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the intertidal area.

On what grounds?

The status of the foreshore had been tested in law once before.

In 1963, the Maori Land Court heard a case on behalf of Muriwhenua Maori claiming ownership of the Ninety Mile Beach foreshore.

The court finding, In Re Ninety Mile Beach, said Crown claims on land adjacent to the foreshore extinguished all Maori customary rights – if the adjacent dry land was no longer customary land, then neither was the land beyond the high water mark.

The finding was based on the presiding judge’s assertion that Maori customary title to land depended “wholly on the grace and favour” of the Crown and was not a provision of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This decision, which subsequent commentators recognised as flawed, meant that the Crown could automatically claim ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

Another act which the Crown claimed mitigated Maori customary rights on the foreshore and seabed was the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.

This act, which resulted in the so-called Sealord deal, was meant to draw a line under Maori fisheries claims with a customary fishing quota for coastal iwi. The Crown argued that the cap on fisheries claims extinguished claims on the seabed, too.

Under this act and precedent, the Crown said the foreshore and seabed could not be Maori customary land.

Te Tau Ihu o Nga Waka were asking for a new ruling on a similar issues, however, despite the precedent set by In Re Ninety Mile Beach, the case would be decided under different parameters.

What happened in Maori Land Court?

The Attorney General v Ngati Apa would be heard under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – the act under which the Maori Land Court and Maori Appellate Courts operate.

Under Te Ture Whenua Maori, all of New Zealand, including the foreshore, seabed and territorial sea, came under one of six categories: Maori customary land, Maori freehold land, general land owned by Maori, general land, Crown land, and Crown land reserved for Maori.

The process for determining the status of land under this act was relatively simple:

•    If it does not have an existing crown title (ie, Maori freehold land, general land owned by Maori, general land, Crown land, or Crown land reserved for Maori) and is held in accordance with tikanga Maori (correct protocol) then it is Maori customary land.

•    The Maori Land Court may then investigate evidence brought by iwi to show “continued un-interrupted occupation of the land”.

•    Based on the findings of the investigation, the court could then issue a Certificate of Title (a certificate of ownership), but this was not implicit in the finding of a customary title.

•    If the claimant wanted to establish ownership, the status of the land may then be changed from Maori customary land to Maori freehold land.

On these grounds, Maori Land Court Judge Heta Hingston ruled the court did have jurisdiction to consider whether foreshore and seabed is Maori customary land, but it would be difficult to prove.

The Crown appealed the decision to the Maori Appellate Court.

So, this is when the issue changes from land rights to plain rights?

In effect. At this point, the case took a new direction. The argument over the foreshore and seabed of the Sounds became an argument about the right to prove ownership in court.

The Appellate Court sent the case to the High Court to determine “points of law” which would finally decide whether or not the Maori Land Court could preside over the case.

The High Court reverted to the In Re Ninety Mile Beach precedent again, ruling that customary rights to foreshore land ended when the adjoining land was sold – this was specific to the foreshore.

With regards to the seabed, the court cited the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977 and the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991 as placing ownership of the seabed with the Crown “for the common good”.

Unhappy with this finding, Te Tau Ihu o Nga Waka appealed.

What did the appeal court find?

In a report to iwi at the time, lobby group Te Ope Mana a Tai said the finding of the Court of Appeal on June 19, 2003, was about more than just the right of one iwi to take a specific case to court.

By stating that the Maori Land Court could in fact decide customary ownership of land under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1999, the Appeal Court decision allowed for the possibility of converting customary title to freehold title.

But Maori customary title to the foreshore and seabed would still need to be established before the Maori Land Court and evidence would need to be produced.

This meant that the ruling only “answered a legal question”, namely that Maori have the right to determine in customary title in court. It was not a ruling on the original case.

The court also said there would be stringent evidential requirements on the part of the claimant to show customary title before it could become freehold, which may be difficult to meet.

The court further clarified the meaning of customary land to be “land held in accordance with tikanga Maori” (correct Maori protocol).

This meant Te Tau Ihu o Nga Waka would now be able to return to the Maori Land Court.

What happened next?

Before iwi could begin the process of reasserting their claim in the Maori Land Court, public panic that the finding could result in access to beaches being restricted created a situation the then Labour Government did not feel it could ignore or simply leave to the courts.

Helen Clark stated that there would be no private ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

The government, in the face of protests from Maori, civil liberties watchdogs and condemnation from the UN, claimed ownership of the inter-tidal area by enacting the Foreshore and Seabed Act, effectively closing the door for Maori to take claims through the courts.

Further Reading:

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1999

The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004

Discussion document for iwi and hapu by lobby group, Te Ope Mana a Tai

The Waitangi Tribunal report on the Report on the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy

A legal analysis by law firm, Bell Gully

Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou – Struggle Without End. Ranginui Walker, 1990, Auckland: Penguin.

Job losses bad – but hidden benefits for some

The public sector has been hit heavily by the new Government’s budgetary crackdown, with almost 2000 public servants made redundant since February this year. But job loss can have some surprising outcomes, TORY REGAN reports:

WHILE job losses have been devastating for many in NZ, a few say there have been unexpected benefits – including less stress and better health.

Former public servant Kathy Shaw says she’s worried about her diminishing bank balance, but says not everything about sudden unemployment has been bad.

“The benefits are that people tell me ‘you look like you’ve lost 20 years!’ because I’m not so stressed any more.”

Kathy worked for a large government agency for 25 years and says she enjoyed the amount of variety she had in her job and the fact she had the ability to move up in positions in the organisation.

In April, the organisation was required to downsize due to budget cuts because the new National Government were determined to reduce numbers in the public sector, so in August Ms Shaw decided to take voluntary redundancy.

There were certain conditions and criteria in place, so there were no losses to the “frontline” type jobs such as call centres or front of office staff.

It was also necessary to make sure not to lose people who were the only ones with knowledge of how to do their jobs so replacements would not have to be hired and trained.

She says it’s hard after 25 years to step back and realise that because she no longer works there, she no longer has any responsibility over things that are happening in the organisation.

“I was quite passionate about [my job], so when I hear about it on the news, I have to say to myself ‘calm down, Kathy, you can’t do anything about it now’.”

She says that although her redundancy payment is good for now, she knows it will not last forever.

“Money is a concern, because I see the figure going down all the time and nothing coming in to top it up again, so that’s quite frightening. I do intend to look for work in the New Year, but I might have to look sooner if I’m not careful,” she says.

While she is unemployed, Kathy takes part in voluntary work, but says it would be helpful to have courses run by places such as Work and Income New Zealand for people who are in her position so they can begin to think about getting back into the work force.

“[WINZ] should really be looking at getting people like me to their offices and going right you’ve got these skills let’s see what jobs we can put you into.

“I have been in the public sector for some time, so I’ve got a certain culture as such. For me, to go and work in another office somewhere, how do I show that those skills are transposable?”

The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) faced significant job losses earlier this year, losing close to 80 members of staff.

Lin Tucker worked at the TEC for two and a half years and was made redundant in May when the entire section she worked for was chopped.

After spending a year there as a temp before working another 18 months in a full time position, she enjoyed her work.

She says she was lucky because she was not in a position where she needed to have a job.

“It’s not been that traumatic for me. The [redundancy] process was, but the subsequent not having a job has actually been quite good.

“I was able to get into a decent exercise programme and lose some weight (20kg so far) and look after myself, so I consider it a bit of bonus in the long run.”

Lin says people who lost their jobs at the TEC were offered help with getting CVs up to date and learning job interview techniques.

“That’s all I think they can do. You can’t have artificial jobs just to keep everybody in work.”

Labour spokesperson for internal affairs Chris Hipkins says the new National Government has more than twice the number of staff earning over $100,000 a year than the last Labour government did.

“At a time when the Government says everyone in the public service has to cut back, reduce, 0% wage increases, it’s a little bit hypocritical to then turn around and spend significant amounts of money on hiring staff at much higher rates than before they became government.”

He says there is also a lot of controversy over pay bonuses given to chief executives while the average New Zealander is getting pay freezes.

“At the moment we have a wage freeze for the staff who are doing the work but Chief Executives are still getting quite large bonuses.

“That really infuriates the people at the grassroots who are doing a hard day’s work, being told they’re getting no salary increase, being told often their jobs are less valuable and so on.

“I think the chief executives getting a big bonus while the staff are getting pay freezes is pretty rich.”

Hipkins says the Government should be investing a lot more in education and training for people who have lost their jobs.

“At a time when people across the economy are losing their jobs, that’s the time to put more money into education and training, because that’s the key overall for a brighter future for the country.

“Increasing the skill levels makes it easier for someone to get a job and it means they’ll be more productive in their new job than they might otherwise have been.

“We have an overall skill problem in the sense that if we want to have higher standard of living then we need to increase overall skill levels of population.”

Unemployment is currently at 6.5% and he says this can also be combatted with more education and training.

State Services Minister Tony Ryall says the Government is seeking ways to get better performance and services from agencies.

“Public Service chief executives have been examining their budgets and the way their organisations work, to maximise the services they are offering the public and reducing the administrative functions.”

He says the public sector will not see the same levels of growth it has over the previous decade because New Zealand cannot afford it in the current economic climate.

“From 2000, the number of public servants grew by 54%, and every year their base salaries increased on average by 4.5%.”

State servants who have been made redundant have the option of entering a redeployment pool during their notice period, but he says this is not a fix-all for everyone, as some people will choose not to take this option.

“Staff affected by any changes are supported and helped to identify other employment opportunities – either within the agency in another role, or elsewhere in the sector.”

World Cup restrictions ‘mad’ say operators

By Daniel Simmons Ritchie

SMALL tourism operators complain that advertising restrictions set for the World Cup are too strict and will see New Zealand companies losing out to big business.

“RWC” and “World Cup 2011” are some of 50 terms forbidden to those who are not  official sponsors of New Zealand’s pre-eminent sporting event.

A spokesman for World Cup Minister Murray McCully says the restrictions, which were put in place under legislation in 2007, are standard brand protection for any major event and will stop businesses from springing up overnight to exploit it.

But Auckland-based Paradise Motor Tours is not convinced. Director Mike Rose says legislation will not stop ambush marketers and will just hinder tour operators.

“To restrict the rest of us who are in the business of bringing tourists to this country, which is our second biggest export earner, to not be able to advertise something that is going to be the biggest event for years to come is, as I said before, completely mad.”

The Rental Vehicle Association has fielded many calls from its members about the restrictions and has made submissions to McCully and the Ministry of Economic Development.

Association chief executive officer Raewyn Bleakley feels a law change is unlikely and says they are advising members to comply with the law as it stands.

However, she says the restrictions may not be black and white:

“There is some latitude for different styles of enforcement within the act and it has been signalled that there may be some leeway to work there.”

McCully’s spokesman confirmed there would need to be some clarification and that guidelines about the restrictions would be released.

“What can be said conclusively is that people are not going to be able to represent themselves as having relationships with the world cup if they don’t have one,” he said.

Green Party MP Keith Locke says that he could understand restricting logos, but words went too far.

“Clearly no one can use a combination of words that implies they are official sponsor, but surely [tour operators] should be able to promote the cup itself in a way that reaches people.”

The Green Party voted against the restrictions, which were passed in 2007 under The Major Event Management Act.

Locke opposed rules in the act which prohibited businesses from advertising products in a similar product range to an official sponsor within a five kilometre radius of the grounds and along major routes leading to the grounds.

Under the Act, if McDonalds were to sponsor the Rugby World Cup no other fast food operator could advertise within five kilometres of Wellington’s Cake Tin and along arteries to the Hutt Valley and Porirua.

Some tour operators have made peace with the restrictions. Wellington Rover managing director Scott Courtenay says while it would be nice to mention the rugby world cup in their advertising, the IRB had a right to protect their brand.

“They’re quite open and honest about what you are allowed to do and what you aren’t allowed to do, that’s been made pretty clear to us.

“So while I possibly don’t agree with it, I think probably the more promotion for it the better and it really doesn’t matter who’s doing it.”

Flying Kiwi managing director Dennis Christian says his business has no plans to use rugby world cup in their marketing, but he was surprised to hear about the restrictions.

“I think anything we can do to further the message of ‘come to New Zealand’ the better, so it’s basically ‘hey, there’s this fantastic event happening here’ and we if can’t use it in the marketing it sounds bloody ridiculous to me.”

However he says overall he had been impressed with PM John Key’s support for tourism and felt that if the Prime Minister could do anything about the restrictions he would have.