Secondary teachers walk off the job as government digs in
A full-day walkout
Secondary teachers are off the job today, with classes around the country cancelled as members of the Post Primary Teachers' Association stage a one-day strike. As Lyric Waiwiri-Smith explains in The Spinoff this morning, the action follows teachers' rejection of the government's offer of a 1% annual pay rise over three years – an increase the union described as 'the lowest in a generation'. Teachers had sought a 4% yearly rise to cover inflation and stem the loss of staff overseas. Today's walkout is just the beginning: rolling strikes are scheduled for mid-September, when teachers will refuse to teach particular year levels on successive days. Meanwhile, primary teachers are holding paid union meetings this week to consider their next steps, after also voting to reject the 1% offer.
Teachers say they're worth more
For many teachers, the issue is about more than headline figures. In a widely shared essay for The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Connor Murphy describes the government's offer as 'an insult disguised as an offer', pointing out that 'teachers entered into these negotiations with a set of very reasonable demands. Instead of making a reasonable counteroffer, the government ignored our requests and crafted an offer seemingly purpose-built to make things worse.' Teachers argue their pay has fallen far behind comparable professions, with Australian starting salaries now up to $31,000 higher than New Zealand's. Murphy says that while prime minister Christopher Luxon has talked about keeping New Zealanders at home with good, well-paying jobs, the government hasn't followed the rhetoric with action, and teachers are instead eyeing better pay across the Tasman.
Ministers dig in
Education minister Erica Stanford has urged the union to return to negotiations, calling today's strike 'premeditated' and 'deeply unfair' for parents and students. Public service minister Judith Collins went further, labelling the walkout a 'political stunt' and accusing unions of having 'little tantrums' and using children 'like their shuttle boards' [sic]. The government has tried to highlight what it says is a strong deal: public service commissioner Sir Brian Roche said the latest offer came 'on top of a further 3.9% to 7.7% in pay increases already built-in for each of the next three years' and that the package would deliver pay rises of between $2,500 and $7,000 a year, when annual progression is included.
But Collins herself was forced into a rare backtrack yesterday after she wrongly claimed that teachers with 10 years' experience earned $147,000 a year. As Stuff's Bridie Witton and Glenn McConnell report, she later admitted she had 'mixed up [her] messages', clarifying that only a small number of senior deputy principals in large schools would reach that figure. The gaffe further inflamed teachers already sceptical about the government's grasp of their pay and conditions.
What teachers actually earn
So what do teachers really take home? As Nik Dirga writes in a comprehensive explainer for RNZ, the base salary for a newly qualified teacher begins at just over $61,000, rising step by step each year to $103,000 at the top of the scale. The Ministry of Education puts the average secondary teacher salary at around $101,000. Extra responsibilities – such as running a subject department or serving as deputy principal – attract management units and allowances, which can boost pay into the $110,000–$140,000 range. But only a handful of teachers reach the $147,000 Collins cited, and most are in senior leadership rather than classroom roles. For new teachers, the current offer of 1% a year translates to an increase of less than $12 a week. That, say striking teachers, is why they're on the picket lines today, and why more disruption is on the way unless the government comes back with an offer they can live with.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
On Teachers, Ferries And The Really Wasteful Spending
In the context of yesterday's teachers strike, Judith Collins claimed that teachers with ten years of experience 'can' (not 'do') earn $147,000 a year. In reality though, teachers have to pay their mortgage/rent and put food on the table with their actual earnings, not with an aspirational figure. Moreover, Cabinet Ministers earning $396,000 a year (plus a myriad of valuable perks and subsidies) are hardly in a position to decry others getting fair pay for the work they do, and for the value they give back to society. (Every backbench MP is paid $20,000 a year more than Collins' theoretical example.) The people who teach our children day in, year out are being offered a net pay cut - 1% a year for the next three years – at a time when inflation is currently running at just below 3%, and rising. Finally, the accusation that the PPTA walked out prematurely – after six days of formal negotiation – ignores the fact that months of engagement preceded these talks, and plainly, the Ministry was not willing to budge from its inflammatory position. There's no point in coming back from the picket lines to talk, when the government is dead-set against compromise. That inflexible mindset is what the strike action has aimed to change. The government, which dearly wants to distract public attention away from its wider failings, is probably welcoming this stoush. Housing for some A year ago this month, the coalition government launched its new policy on emergency housing, which - traditionally – has been the last resort for people with nowhere else to go. The new guidelines made access to emergency housing more difficult to get, and harder to keep. As a result over the past year, city footpaths and shop doorways have been seeing a sharp influx of homeless people. On the Spinoff, Joel McManus has written a solid backgrounder on the issues involved. Yet in a sideshow of extravagance last week.. Defence Minister Judith Collins opened a huge $250 million building at Ohakea Air Base that will house the Air Force's four Poseidon P-8A surveillance aircraft. Good to know that this fleet of hugely expensive aircraft (the original price tag for the basics was $2.34 billion before upgrades and add-ons) will be housed in a state-of-the-art 20,000 square metre building, in between the times they fly off around the Pacific looking for Chinese submarines that may (or may not) be out there. Priority: spend a quarter of a billion dollars on lavish housing for four aeroplanes, while cutting the ability of Kainga Ora to build housing for the tens of thousands of New Zealanders in need of a roof over their heads. Go figure. Ferries follies More revealing numbers surfaced last week about the cost of cancelling the iRex Cook Strait ferries. The total payments to South Korea's Hyundai Mipo shipyard amount to $222 million, which is the initial deposit plus the $144 million penalty imposed for breaking the contract. Reportedly, an additional $449 million has been spent on the portside infrastructure, and on the project management expenses that have included the cost of negotiating the exit. The government has made it clear that it intends to scale back the renewal of the portside infrastructure. Much of that work will simply be kicked down the road. As a result, taxpayers/travellers/firms will have to cope for years to come with rundown and already inadequate terminal facilities. The smaller ferries now being purchased will also provide a less reliable, less comfortable service during the sort of adverse weather that led to the ferry cancellations last week. There will also be a significant delay until those inferior ferries are delivered. As yet, there has been no official estimate of the economic cost of deferring the arrival of new ferries from 2026 (when the iRex ferries were due to enter service) until 2029, which is the earliest estimated arrival time of the replacement vessels. How many hundreds of millions will be lost via this avoidable delay? The government isn't asking, or telling. As yet, we don't know which shipyard will be contracted to build the new ferries. If, at year's end, this proves to be Hyundai Mipo, one can only conclude that the $144 million breakage fee was a concession, as part of a package deal. To put that another the lucky bidder turns out to be Hyundai Mipo, will that decision have been based on merit, or will it be the by-product of yet another cost cutting exercise, and a condition imposed by the South Koreans for halving the breakage fee from its original ballpark estimate of circa $300 million. This fiasco is being played out on our main domestic trade and tourism link. Footnote: As indicated above, Defence spending occurs in a silo that's largely exempted from the government's austerity measures. Despite the absence of any credible foreign threat to this country – apart from US tariffs – the coalition government will be spending $12 billion of taxpayer money on armaments and weapons delivery systems over the next few years. This irrational diversion of the nation's resources has become so normalised that it is easy to overlook just how much New Zealand society could be transformed if a fraction of that money was spent on the actual needs here at home. Consider for example, that $144 million iRex ferries contract breakage fee alone. How could that amount of money have been spent more usefully? Here are a few options, estimated on the basis of the averaged-out labour costs. Registered nurses (Reg nurse pay rates $74,000 to $153,000 pa. Average of these figs = $113,500 p.a.) Divide $144m by $113,500 = You could pay 1,269 nurses for a year merely from the breakage fee for the ferries contract. OR Support workers ("help people with health problems or disabilities to do daily tasks, such as housework, and be as independent as possible.") (Per hour rates only given: $24 to $28 /hour = $49,920 to $58,240 p.a. Average of these = $54,080 p.a.) Divide $144m by $54,080 = you could pay 2,663 support workers for a year OR Teacher aides (Per hour rates : $28 to $35 /hour = $58,240 to $72,800 p.a. Average of these = $65,520 p.a.) Divide $144m by $65,520 = you could pay 2,198 teacher aides for a year OR Early childhood teachers EC teacher $49,000 to $78,000 p.a. Average = $63,500 p.a.) Divide $144m by $63,500 = you could pay 2,268 Early Childhood teachers for a year. These are the kind of options not being taken. Billions are being wasted on (a) the shonky ferries replacement(b) Defence procurements to combat phantom enemies and (c) that $3 billion tax handout to landlords. Social services are being starved in order to make these follies possible. Thomas the Rhymer And now, a poem about bargaining, and the costs to be paid. In the 1970s, many people became aware of the medieval tale of Thomas the Rhymer through the hit song of the same name by the British folk group, Steeleye Span. Around the same time, I ran across this reading of the poem – in ye olde English – by Ian Stewart. It brings out the inherent musicality of the old language. This is a poem to be said, not read. More to the point, Stewart brings to life the otherworldly nature of the encounter between True Thomas, and the sad, seductive Queen of fair Elfland. In the video, the olde 78rpm recording is a reminder of how incredibly fast those ancient brittle discs would spin around on the turntable:
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The importance of clear laws shown in impressive evidence from Italy
If New Zealand's laws were as ambiguous, we would be worse off by $20 billion – or about $10,000 per household – every year. What family would not welcome avoiding that? What is 'poorly drafted' law? The researchers used 10 indicators of writing that likely lacks clarity. It assesses each of over 75,000 Italian laws. One measure is sentence length. According to experts, sentences with more than 25 words are likely to be unclear. The authors found that 85% of the millions of sentences in all of this law exceeded 25 words. That might seem staggering for those who do not read law books. Authors of children's books might think it was absurd. Lawyers are likely less surprised, but still disturbed. Greater clarity in drafting should be easy to fix. So why isn't it? The paper's answer lies in law-making imperatives. These include haste, compromise, personal career aspirations and short-term expediency. Ambiguity conceals likely outcomes. It shields blame and defuses critics' attempts to pinpoint a proposed law's problems. Even lawyers cannot be sure how courts will interpret unclear laws. Nor can judges in a lower court be sure about how a higher court will interpret them. This uncertainty creates a cascade of problems throughout the legal system. The authors examined 620,000 Italian Supreme Court judgments between 2004 and 2017. They found 32% of them reversed a decision of a lower court solely on legal grounds The rule of law is a precondition for national prosperity. The law should be clear and accessible. When it is not clear to judges, it cannot be clear to those who must obey it. The paper next assessed the effects on over 700,000 Italian firms of reversed court decisions. It looked, for example, at changes in their investment spending and output growth. This aspect was another exhaustive, path-breaking achievement. It found the adverse effects were significant. The estimated permanent 5% drop in Italian national income encapsulates that. The paper's approach is ingenious, but too complex to explain here. Are New Zealand's laws better drafted in these respects? It would be good to know, because low productivity is holding New Zealanders back. It should be easy to improve drafting quality. The bigger the gains, the more it should be a priority. To better inform this article, I used AI to count the word lengths of sentences in two of New Zealand's acts. From an Italian perspective, the results were encouraging. The proportion of sentences in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 that exceeded 25 words was 'only' 70%. For the Resource Management Act 1991, it was 53%. Even so, the implication is that most New Zealanders would not find the Resource Management Act (RMA) law clear and accessible. Parliament could be more insistent about improving clarity. The Government's Regulatory Standards Bill would increase this discipline. One part requires the Government to tell Parliament if a bill is unclear and hard to understand – and explain why. Small comfort, but better than nothing. Of course, there is more to good law than just clear drafting. Its content surely matters even more. Prominent symptoms of content problems include unaffordable housing, and infrastructure delays and inadequacies. However, much more is hidden or accepted as 'part of the woodwork'. Content problems have many sources. Public pressure on governments to 'do something' about the latest adverse headline is one source. Appeasing that pressure can be the easiest option. More mundane are the relentless daily calls on ministers to regulate or spend for this or that partisan or public-spirited cause. Such calls often fail to consider the costs to others. The Italian paper acknowledges that content also matters. It cites literature that shows property rights and institutional quality are key determinants of economic prosperity. The RMA is deficient in both respects. It offends almost everyone. The Regulatory Standards Bill also recognises the importance of protecting private property. Ministers must tell Parliament of any grounds for concern but Parliament can ignore this information at will and continues to be supreme lawmaker. (Most public opposition to this bill ignores this limiting aspect.) Greater transparency about these matters could help inform voters. Governments would spend and regulate more judiciously if more voters rewarded them for doing so. This exhaustive Italian research helps make the potential gains more concrete.
Newsroom
8 hours ago
- Newsroom
On rate capping, lessons from across the Tasman
A move to cap council rates in the style of Australia could punish the councils that have worked hardest to keep their rates low. That's the warning from experts in Victoria as Local Government Minister Simon Watts works on a plan to tackle soaring rate rises here. Rate capping, or rate pegging, has been in force in New South Wales and Victoria for several years and is loosely based on the rate of inflation or the consumer price index. Victoria's rate cap this year is set at 3 percent, while NSW has a wider range from 3.6 percent to 5.1 percent. In both states councils can apply for higher caps but the process is complicated and deeply controversial with ratepayers. Watts is looking closely at the Australian model as a way to control runaway, double-digit increases, but Victoria Municipal Authority president Jennifer Anderson says that an across-the-board cap could damage councils that have kept rate increases down and reward those that have imposed hefty increases. 'Rate capping is here to stay. It does offer a sense of security to the community,' says Anderson. It was brought in 10 years ago after outcry from ratepayers over years of big rate rises. 'The difficulty was [that] the base from which you've taken it will vary from different councils. So there may have been councils that were working off a low base because they hadn't put their rates up very much, versus some councils that may have had higher rates to begin with and more reserves when they brought it [rate capping] in,' she says. It has meant that many smaller councils are now seriously underfunded because they had less money to start with. Anderson says pegging it to the CPI or rate of inflation is also problematic. 'The difficulty for councils is we're not like a home base where it's a shopping basket of the cost of bread and eggs and milk. 'We've got many other costs that aren't based on CPI.' Australian local body journalist Michael Giles agrees that ratepayers have embraced Victoria's Fair Go Rates scheme but there are unfair elements of it that the New Zealand Government should be aware of. 'These [New Zealand] councils that are increasing by 15 percent, that'll be locked in, so that any increases in following years of 2 and 3 percent, that just goes on top of those hefty increases that those local councils have brought in at the time,' he says. Giles, the publisher of the South Gippsland Sentinel-Times in Wonthaggi, has covered local government for 40 years and says his capped rates bill does not cover everything. He also has to pay a waste levy and an emergency services levy. That differs from the NSW rate peg formula which includes the emergency services levy and takes into account population growth in the council area. Councils that have applied for variations on the caps or pegs have faced angry revolts from residents, including one Sydney authority where ratepayers rallied over an attempt to raise its rates by 40 percent over three years and another that voted to raise them by 87 percent over two years. In Victoria, Anderson says the rules have also made it too difficult for councils to apply for variations to the cap. 'The mechanism through which it has been delivered and the difficulties that councils face when they need to apply for variation, there are things that could be approved there to make it a more workable system that the community can understand and it makes the councils more financially sustainable to provide the services that the communities expect them to provide.' She says many councils in a funding crunch are starting to cancel services, such as aged care. After 10 years of rate capping in Victoria, Giles says councils and ratepayers will start to feel the cumulative effect of lower rates incomes. 'I think we're coming to a squeeze point,' he says. 'The sorts of things communities want to see – sports facilities, swimming pools, other increases in lifestyle infrastructure – these things are getting further and further away from local councils to deliver because of that cost squeeze.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
