|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
In the minds of many New Zealanders, university degrees carry greater status than industry qualifications. But many tradespeople earn as much, or more, than an average university graduate. Many tradies also go on to start highly successful businesses. Financially, the plumber may well come out ahead of the public servant. Why, then, are industry qualifications not valued more highly than they are? The root issue is cultural bias in favour of academic learning, but the traditional school curriculum also contributes to the higher status of degrees. Most subjects are derived from university disciplines, creating a mindset that school is preparation for university. Things might be about to change. Under the government’s proposal for new school qualifications, students will be able to study ‘industry-led’ subjects in Years 12 and 13. The goal is to improve the quality, status and uptake of vocational education in schools. It is a worthy aim – but challenging to deliver on. My new report for the Initiative, Working Knowledge, makes recommendations for policy settings that will help make industry-led subjects a success. The first challenge will be getting the curricula right. Industry Skills Boards (ISBs) will write them. That should ensure that the industry-led subjects are well aligned with the needs of business. But ISBs must consult with schools and subject associations to ensure that they are also appropriate for secondary students and deliverable for schools. On the implementation side, few schools are set up to offer strong vocational programmes. They should receive per-enrolment funding to support industry-led subjects. Schools could use it to employ additional staff, enrol students part-time in tertiary institutions, or engage employers to offer work-integrated learning opportunities. The funding should be redirected from the university component of the fees-free tertiary entitlement. That expensive scheme has done nothing to boost university enrolments. Because many students see vocational education as low-status, they may need incentives to consider industry-led subjects. Industry-led subjects could potentially yield industry certificates alongside contributing to school qualifications. And an Industry Award, equivalent in status and workload to University Entrance, would provide a clearly signalled pathway from school to industry training. Industry-led subjects are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the game for vocational education. We owe it to our young people to get it right. Explore Michael’s research through our new research note and our NZ Herald column. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
New Zealand’s public service has the same problem. My recent report Who runs the country? argues that ministers should appoint their chief executives, with statutory protections for the career service below. The public service keeps delivering examples of why the reform is needed. Medsafe kept its second review of medicines approved overseas, despite a coalition commitment to drop it. The Ministry for the Environment kept its planning worldview, despite a mandate for property-rights reform. The Commerce Commission was meant to lose powers and now gains them. Last week, emeritus professor Jonathan Boston published a critique calling the reform a “grave mistake.” Most of his piece argues that the New Zealand public service is broadly fine, that obstruction is occasional rather than structural and that the examples do not justify changes of this scale. Boston is asking the right question. But he gets the answer wrong. If the public service is broadly fine, my proposal is unnecessary. If it is structurally unable to deliver what elected governments promise voters, no amount of fine-tuning at the margins will fix it. Boston also raised more specific concerns about the proposal. He worried about nepotism risks, the loss of free and frank advice and the limits of any reform that does not touch Crown entities. Each is anticipated and addressed in the report itself. On nepotism, my proposal includes qualification requirements, transparent appointments and parliamentary scrutiny rather than a free hand for ministers. On free and frank advice, a statutory duty to object protects officials who raise legality concerns, with career protections shielding them from reprisal. On Crown entities, the report explains why fixing the central machinery is the right place to start. The question worth asking is whether New Zealand’s public service is delivering what elected governments promise. The cases say no, and they are not unique to this government. If anyone has a better solution than mine, the country would benefit from hearing it. What it does not need is the assurance that nothing is broken. Read my report Who runs the country? here and Jonathan Boston’s critique. Then make up your own mind. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Eric Crampton | Chief Economist | eric.crampton@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
But would it really kill us to have a better sense of proportion about other things? It is currently fashionable to worry about datacentres’ water use and pester people about the water-cost of their AI queries. Datagrid’s new datacentre in Southland has permission to take up to 220 million litres of groundwater per year. It does not expect to use nearly that much. Southland has a cool climate, and rooftop rainwater collection could suffice. But on a hot day, if the rooftop tanks are empty, it could need up to 7 litres per second. That rate, for every second of the year, would mean ‘up to 220 million litres per year’. But suppose it really did take the full 220 million litres. Would that be a big number? Let’s get some perspective. The Wanaka Golf Club recently had consent to take up to 126 million litres of water per year. The Hastings Golf Club could take almost 15 million litres per week. So the datacentre’s maximum water take is higher than some golf courses and much lower than others. Splash Planet waterpark in Hastings has had consent for up to 125 million litres, and a single 40-hectare vineyard at Bridge Pa has had consent to take up to about 128 million litres: so roughly two waterparks or two vineyards to the datacentre. Wowsers could have a new reason to bother people: do you know how many litres of irrigation it took to produce the bottle you’re drinking? Drinking is bad but eating is worse. The datacentre’s maximum water use is still much lower than that of a meatworks. It’s also about a quarter of the average Canterbury irrigation consent. Irrigation consents in Canterbury would be enough for more than 20,000 datacentres. Going vegetarian will not wash you clean. The water consent for the Heinz-Watties plant in Hawke’s Bay has been big enough for about 40 datacentres. And a single apple orchard in Hawke's Bay has had consent to take more than 2 datacentres’ worth. In The Hitchhiker’s Guide, the Total Perspective Vortex, which lets you see your own insignificance, was fatal. A little perspective on water use would only risk some scolds’ sense of self-satisfaction. I think that risk is worth it. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |