|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
In his January 26 column, Grant argued that Education Minister Erica Stanford’s reforms to New Zealand’s school system are destined to fail. He believes that without market-based competition in the education system, there can be little improvement. Grant favours parents freely choosing schools for their children, with schools competing for their business. Free markets are excellent at improving quality and delivering value for money. The state is bad at both of those things. Just ask anyone who has lived under communism. So, Grant is right that a free market in education could drive improvement, as it does for all manner of things. If parents had real choice in their children’s schooling, schools that provided the best outcomes would thrive. Charter schools will provide such choice, if enough of them are established. An ongoing test of the quality of mainstream schooling will be whether or not it loses students to charters. Stanford favours the state taking direct responsibility for education. Her approach must be backed by sound policy and accountability to succeed. Until the late 20th century, New Zealand had a high-quality state-run education system. Twenty-five years ago, we were near the top of the international test rankings. But the state dropped the education policy ball. It introduced a curriculum that is nearly bereft of knowledge. It gave control of initial teacher education to universities, which has not worked out well. In university programmes, teachers spend too little time in classrooms. Their focus is on theory and ideology rather than evidence-informed practice. Stanford inherited a broken system and is determined to repair it. She is introducing a new, knowledge-rich curriculum and has signalled her intention to reform teacher education. Whether an education system is market-driven or state-run, accountability is key to ongoing improvement. If school leaders cannot prove that their students are making the expected progress, there must be a mechanism to replace them. But accountability is lacking at present. Failing schools are allowed to continue failing. If Stanford can solve the accountability problem her reforms will yield improvement. New Zealand’s past success shows that a high-quality state-run school system is possible. Stanford is making the right moves to regain that success. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Jemma Stevenson | Research Fellow | jemma.stevenson@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Like many other tradespeople, my dad has taken pride in helping people design beautiful kitchens. As a result, I spent a lot of time discussing all aspects of the industry, including the dangers of engineered stone. Cutting, drilling and grinding engineered stone emits silica dust. When workers inhale dust over an extended period, they can develop silicosis, which causes damage and scarring to the lungs. Due to scarring, lung flexibility is reduced, making breathing difficult. There is no cure. Following an Australian ban on engineered stone last year, debates in New Zealand have gained traction. WorkSafe inspections of 102 stone fabrication businesses between June 2023 and October 2024 led to 131 enforcement action notices for 67 individual businesses. So there are problems in New Zealand as well. But bans are a very blunt instrument and should be reserved for extreme cases. Are there better approaches? New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Commission covers the cost of workplace accidents. It has pretty strong incentives to reduce those costs. Last year, ACC awarded a grant aimed at developing safer practices for dealing with engineered stone. ACC also runs an experience rating programme, rewarding businesses with low claims. ACC could also reasonably provide a modified experience rating programme for stone fabrication businesses, rewarding those who maintain safe workplaces. I pay a high premium on my car insurance because my age means I’m in a high-risk category. The same logic should apply to stone fabrication businesses issued with enforcement action notices. Evidence suggests that there is no safe level of silica dust exposure. But the dose generally makes the poison: risk increases with exposure. MBIE is consulting on workplace safety issues with engineered stone. If risky practices lead to high insurance premiums, and safer practices help reduce premiums, we may have a way of discovering better solutions rather than prescribing them centrally. While this area of research is not my primary focus at The New Zealand Initiative, it displays the approach I strive to bring to policy analysis. That being the promotion of market-based solutions informed through rigorous economic analysis, experience, and a recognition that state involvement is sometimes necessary. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Roger Partridge | Chair and Senior Fellow | roger.partridge@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Their logic is impeccable. After all, what sort of country would we become if we fulfilled our potential? Tourism might recover. That would mean unwanted jobs and business opportunities. Foreign investment would risk modernising our infrastructure. Our mineral wealth might promote prosperity instead of sitting safely underground where it belongs. The anti-mining brigade has taken this protective stance to heart. “We’re struggling economically, and our young people are leaving for Australia,” they observe without apparent irony. Yet they steadfastly oppose attempts to develop the resources that might give those young people reasons to stay. The Eden Park resistance movement is particularly inspiring. They wage a tireless campaign against occasional concerts. Their success ensures Auckland maintains its enviable position. We are a city where fans must fly overseas for entertainment. Never mind their carbon emissions. Environmental advocates have helpfully warned us that economic development might lead to development. Their solution? Just stop developing. It has the compelling simplicity of a flat-earth theory. Who needs prosperity when you can have poverty with principles? Perhaps the most impressive contribution comes from those warning about foreign investment. They worry that foreign investment might disturb our carefully cultivated economic isolation. Better to maintain our pure, investment-free environment. Why risk following Ireland’s path to higher living standards? After all, it’s not as if we need the hospitals, schools and infrastructure all that extra revenue could help build. Thanks to the tireless efforts of objectors, New Zealand maintains its comfortable position behind Australia in most economic metrics. Indeed, our “can’t do, won’t grow” mindset has become our most successful export. That’s mainly because it keeps encouraging our young people to leave. The crowning achievement of those resisting growth is reframing economic stagnation as a virtue. New Zealand’s growing exodus of talent isn’t a crisis - it’s a carbon reduction strategy. Our declining productivity isn’t an economic failure - it’s a bold stance against materialism. At least we can take comfort in one thing: while other nations foolishly chase economic success, New Zealand has mastered the far more sophisticated art of managed decline. One might even say it’s our most sustainable industry. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |