Inquiry to be held into Orgreave confrontation
Britain said today it would hold an inquiry into the "Battle of Orgreave", a violent confrontation between police and striking coal miners in 1984 at the height of a year-long industrial dispute with Margaret Thatcher's government.
More than 5000 striking miners clashed with a similar number of riot police who had been drafted in from across the country at the Orgreave coking plant near Sheffield in northern England.
It was one of the most violent scenes witnessed during a British industrial dispute, and also a pivotal moment in the strike, launched against Thatcher's moves to close money-losing pits. The miners ultimately lost the broader fight to save their industry.
The police have long faced accusations of brutality and using excessive violence at Orgreave on June 18, 1984. TV footage showed charges by officers on horseback and one miner being repeatedly struck on the head with a baton.
More than 120 people were injured and 95 miners initially arrested and charged with riot and violent disorder. Those charges were all later dropped after the evidence was dismissed.
Campaigners have for years demanded to know who was responsible for the deployment of the large number of police and their tactics, as well as what happened to some official documents.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper - Britain's interior minister whose Labour party was in opposition at the time of the strike - said an inquiry headed by Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield, would be held to find out the truth.
"The violent scenes and subsequent prosecutions raised concerns that have been left unanswered for decades, and we must now establish what happened," she said.
Kate Flannery, the Orgreave Truth & Justice Campaign Secretary, said they needed to be sure that the inquiry had the powers to have unrestricted access to all government and police papers.
"We have waited a long time for this day and this is really positive news," she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
5 hours ago
- 1News
Job cuts as part of Govt's polytech reform necessary
Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds says a reduction of 600 roles across different polytechnics is necessary to address unsustainable financial deficits as the Government dismantles Te Pūkenga. Ten polytechnics will be re-established from next year 2026, Simmonds announced last week, with differing fates for six other institutions. Simmonds told Q+A the net job losses were necessary to address unsustainable deficits. "It depends where they're coming from. When you've got institutions that are running $11.3 million deficits, you simply cannot carry on with that," she said. "You look at what's causing those deficits. In the WelTec/Whitireia situation, the arts centre here in the middle of Wellington, they were running at a ratio of one staff member to 5.6 students. No school gets that advantage. ADVERTISEMENT "You've got to have a look at where the staff are going to come from, and in some cases, it's just they shouldn't be operating at that ratio." She confirmed "there would be a reduction this year" of roles at some institutions. "There will be further redundancies." Minister confident changes will prove worth Treasury has previously suggested the reforms could risk repeating past failures, saying plans remained focused on supporting institutions' financial viability, "with no clear evidence of how the needs of learners and employers have been considered". Simmonds responded when read the advice: "Treasury gave a range of advice, which Cabinet looked at along with lots of other advice. "We've got evidence over the last five decades of polytechnics being able to be successful to reflect the needs of industries and their community, and so I relied on the history that we'd seen of polytechnics being able to do that successfully." ADVERTISEMENT Before entering politics, the Vocational Education Minister and National MP served as the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology. Treasury officials also posited the reforms could create a financial situation "similar, if not worse, than the situation faced by [educational institutions] pre-Te Pūkenga". Asked about assurances that further bailouts wouldn't be needed, she said the institutions "will be set up in the best possible way that they can be". "They will have their debt addressed. They will have their financial pathway to viability. It's then up to communities to make sure that the right people are in the governance roles and the right people are in the management roles, and that they integrate with the community." Simmonds was also pressed about whether some institutions gaining independence were in worse financial positions than those entering federation. "No, not a worse financial position, no. So, some of them will get to sustainability. They'll get to a surplus. In the time they'll take to get to a surplus, they have reserves that can cover them during that time." Labour says new model will drain regions ADVERTISEMENT In response to the Q+A interview, Labour's education spokesperson Shanan Halbert said, the whole point of Te Pūkenga was to make the polytechnic sector more financially viable and ensure more training opportunities and employment in our regions. "The changes announced today will only return the polytechnic sector to a model that was never financially viable – and the result will be major job losses in local areas." Halbert said the Government "could have simply addressed some of the issues" the existing model to avoid the "uncertainty this has had on staff and students". The changes to amalgamate polytechnics and institutes of technology were introduced by the previous Labour government. In her interview, Simmonds was also asked about delays to a ban on single-use plastics, how she had managed her environment portfolio, and on Gore's recent tap water issues. For the full interview, watch the video above Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Political cosyism behind 3rd medical school decision-making
On 21 May I was introduced to two new words (always a moment of light excitement for me) by Dr Bryce Edwards, Director of the newly established Integrity Institute which publishes regular Integrity Briefings. On this occasion the new word was 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism': Chumocracy and cosyism. He was referring to the work of Auckland University Professor of Economics Robert MacCulloch who was calling out 'soft corruption' by political and business elites in Aotearoa New Zealand. His focus included government, banks, big business and the rightwing 'thinktank' New Zealand Initiative. Such was the strength and persistence of the hostile response from these elites that he felt sufficiently pressured to close his website. The core of MacCulloch's argument is that New Zealand is run by a 'chumocracy' of elites who are connected by what he calls 'cosyism'. Third medical school announcement These were the words that I began to think about after absorbing the announcement by Health Minister Simeon Brown and Universities Minister Shane Reti early in the afternoon of 21 July that it was proceeding with the proposed third medical school at Waikato University: Official announcement. Later that the same day I was interviewed about the decision on Radio New Zealand's The Panel where my main focus was on the poor process which was likely to lead to an eventual poor outcome: Medical school decision based on poor process. Nearly two years earlier I had outlined my concerns about the Waikato University proposal in an article published by BusinessDesk (26 August 2023): Third medical school caution. What is the third medical school The new medical school is to provide a four-year medical degree for students who already are graduates with a non-medical degree to work as general practitioners (or as other rural doctors) in regional and rural areas. The medical degree at the existing two medical schools, Auckland and Otago, is five years. The advocated expectation is that the proposed Waikato Medical School will be graduating 120 doctors a year once it is up and running. With its opening scheduled for 2028 the first graduates should start working as general practitioners or other rural doctors at the earliest in 2037. This gap comprises both the time at the medical school and the time as resident (junior) doctors in training. Last year the Ministry of Health commissioned a report which advised that that Waikato's teaching model would be similar to the model in Wollongong University, south of Sydney. Reportedly 45% of the latter's graduates become GPs of which around 30% proceeded to work in rural areas. In 2017 the Auckland and Otago medical schools had proposed that they be allowed to jointly establish a new joint 'school of rural medicine'. However, while the previous Labour-led government and Ministry of Health was favourably disposed to this initiative, progress was understandably impeded by the Covid-19 pandemic. In a memo to then Health Minister Shane Reti in September last year, Treasury recommended that Auckland and Otago Medical Schools be asked to present a counter-factual argument to the Waikato proposal. However, it appears that no such invitation was made. Analysis by the Integrity Institute The best commentary I have seen on this decision has come from Bryce Edwards in another Integrity Briefing published the same day as the Government's announcement and after my The Panel interview (21 July): Costly case study in policy capture. Edwards also drew upon the excellent investigative work of Radio New Zealand's Guyan Espinar. Consistent with his above-mentioned piece on 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' he describes the decision as: … not, at its core, a decision about health policy. It is a decision about political power, influence, and the erosion of good process. This project serves as a textbook case study of policy capture, where the interests of a well-connected institution, amplified by high-powered lobbyists, have overridden expert advice, fiscal prudence, and superior alternatives. Later in his piece he adds: This lack of transparency and due process is antithetical to good governance. The entire Waikato med school saga has unfolded via secret contracts, private lobbying meetings, and politically wired relationships – all largely hidden from the public until journalists and watchdogs pried it into the light. Backing this up Edwards draws upon many questionable process features including: Waikato Vice-Chancellor Professor Neil Quigley working 'hand-in-glove' in 'partisan coordination' with Shane Reti before the last election and promising the proposed school would be 'a 'present' to a future National government'. Waikato University helping pay for the National party's campaign announcement of the medical school plan (about $5,000). Government officials seeing 'red flags' in the proposal including alarm bells ringing from Treasury, the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education warning of bloated costs, duplication risks and logistical hurdles. The use of two of the most well-connected lobbyists: initially former Labour senior adviser Neale Jones and more substantially former National cabinet minister Steven Joyce. Joyce's firm was paid about $1 million over three years by Waikato for 'consultancy' (le, leveraging his political influence). Questionable procurement in the way Waikato University hired Joyce leading to a public 'scolding' by the Auditor-General John Ryan. Ignoring the arguably better alternative of expanding the existing Auckland and Otago medical schools which were already running rural immersion schemes and satellite programs geared toward rural health. Edwards does not hold back: At its core, the Waikato medical school saga is an illustration of how not to make public policy. The process has failed every basic test of transparency, public accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. A public university and eager politicians cooked up a major spending initiative as a political favour, greased by lobbyists and implemented via dubious means. The normal checks and balances – open procurement, independent policy analysis, genuine stakeholder consultation – were subverted or ignored. It's the kind of deal that breeds public cynicism in politics, the sense that big decisions are made on behalf of the powerful or the connected, not the public. Further: By greenlighting this project in July 2025, ministers have signalled that political paybacks matter more than prudent spending. They have effectively rewarded a campaign of lobbying and pressure that sidestepped the usual contest of ideas. That sets a horrible precedent. It tells every other vested interest: hire the right insiders, make the right donations or deals, and you too can get the government to write a big cheque, officials' advice be damned. And: The Waikato medical school greenlight might be a political win for a few, but it's a loss for New Zealand's standards of governance. It undermines confidence that our health investments are made wisely and fairly. And it should prompt some soul-searching in Wellington: if this is how we make big decisions now, what does that say about who really runs the country? Unconvincing contrary views There have been contrary analyses supporting the Government's decision which I find unconvincing. Luke Malpass, Stuff Political, Business & Economics Editor and formerly holding a leadership role in the New Zealand Initiative expressed a negative view of current medical schools describing them emotively, but without substantiation, as a 'duopoly'. Writing in The Post (22 July; paywalled) in a flaky critique he dismisses those critical of the process, presumably including Bryce Edwards, as 'weird': Flaky rather than investigative. Two days later Waikato University ethics professor and philosopher Nick Algar wrote a paywalled opinion piece in The Post abstractly arguing that those critical of the Government's were guilty of 'sloppy thinking'. This reminded me of the expression 'pot calling the kettle black': Sloppy thinking in the debate over Waikato medical school | The Post Sloppy analysis of 'sloppy thinking'. He also reminded me of Oscar Wilde on philosophy although without the latter's famous and infamous wit: 'My philosophy? I'm always right and you are wrong.' The last word Let's leave the last word to the action of the Government in releasing its redacted 'cabinet business case' material at 6.45pm last Friday as reported by the Otago Daily Times the following day: Politically expedient timing of third medical school case. This timing has been a common practice of successive governments recognising that this is the most difficult time for media scrutiny before it is taken over by other news. If the difficult to substantiate claim of $50 million savings per year stood up to rigorous scrutiny it would have been released at a time convenient for media scrutiny. But 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' necessitated otherwise. Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Winston Peters: ‘Careless' immigration ‘transforming cities', Nigel Farage's Reform ‘compelling'
Peters, who is the Foreign Affairs Minister, spoke about what he described as an 'alarming development' overseas. 'People are concerned as to where their countries are going, and New Zealanders are no different. They are more acutely aware of the problem we're dealing with here than the politicians are. 'They have seen the international circumstances of careless immigration policies transforming cities, changing cities, changing centuries of development and social life, and people feel at risk because of it.' He pointed to several European countries, including England, where he said there were concerns about 'people who have come there who don't salute the flag, don't salute the values of the country, don't salute the people who were there before them, don't respect the right to have your own religion'. 'These sorts of things are values that we need to stress. If you don't subscribe to that, don't come here.' He believed New Zealand was experiencing similar issues. 'Some of these people are out there celebrating diversity, flying all sorts of flags. We have one flag in this country and it's been there since 1904 ... That's what they should be saluting. People have died for it.' NZ First leader Winston Peters speaks to the Herald about his party's view on immigration. Photo / Mark Mitchell His comments come against the backdrop of the rising popularity of Nigel Farage's Reform UK party. It has soared past Labour and the Conservatives in recent polls, though a general election could be several years away. Peters has told the Herald he is 'friends' with Farage and that they communicate. He was 'entertained' by the Reform leader last time he was in the UK. 'I think that there are things to do with that party and New Zealand First which are so similar. That is why we've got confidence going into the future.' Those similarities were 'true grit, determination and principles'. Asked whether he looked at Reform and its targeting of immigration, Peters responded: 'Yes, I do. It's very compelling, but that they had to come to that is a serious worry'. Farage, best known for his Brexit advocacy, takes a hardline approach to immigration policy. Last year, he said British culture was 'under threat' and 'in decline', and proposed a freeze on non-essential migration. He warned of riots last year if migrants did not 'integrate' into their communities. While Farage has faced allegations of emboldening racism – he denies this and says Reform is 'non-racist' - his party appears to be influencing the public debate in the UK about immigration. An Ipsos poll in May found Reform had the highest level of trust on immigration policies, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour Party has taken a stronger line on border issues. In a May speech, Starmer said the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers'. He later expressed regret after criticism that his comment echoed British politician Enoch Powell, who said in 1968 that the UK's white population could find themselves 'strangers in their own country'. Massey University distinguished professor Paul Spoonley previously told the Herald that he didn't believe there was a similar anti-immigration sentiment here. 'Australia, Canada and New Zealand target skilled migrants, and we use our point[s] system to identify who's going to be appropriate. We have a very managed immigration system. Most of Europe does not.' Winston Peters met Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom last year. Photo / Facebook/Winston Peters 'Still our plan', 32 years on The interview with Peters was held as NZ First celebrates its 32nd birthday. When it was formed, the party laid out 15 principles, including acknowledging that, while New Zealand would need 'overseas skills and expertise', it did not want immigration to be 'an excuse for our failure to train, skill and employ our own people'. That remained 'as much a principle now as it was back then', Peters said. 'We, like wise countries, have always believed we should be training and employing our own people first and not use immigration as an excuse not to do that. That is still our plan.' He expressed concern about the current number of migrants to New Zealand. In the year to May 2025, there was a net migration gain of 15,000, driven by 140,000 arrivals offset by 125,000 departures. The number of arrivals is down from a peak of roughly 235,000 in late 2023, but still above the long-term average of 119,000. However, due to the large number of departures, the net gain is below the average of nearly 28,000. Peters' concern about the immigration figures is in part prompted by his desire for New Zealanders to be employed, but he also remembers a time when arriving migrants were supported by appropriate infrastructure. 'There was a time when we were getting people from around the world putting down £10 to get here. They were coming to a job and a house and infrastructure, schooling, everything. Teachers and doctors and all sorts of people were coming here.' New Zealand's infrastructure deficit and pressures in the health system are well-reported, and Peters said work was under way on a population policy that he hoped would be revealed this term. 'If you're going to bring in people that you essentially need, we've got to make sure we've got the infrastructure for them,' he said. Net migration gain is below the long-term average, but about 140,000 people still arrived here in the year to May. Photo / Alex Burton In 2003, while speaking from the opposition benches in Parliament, Peters complained that 'a hundred thousand New Zealanders are out of work, yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants'. With Peters now in power, the Herald put it to him that, at the end of June, 216,000 people were receiving Jobseeker support while thousands of migrants were arriving. He responded that, if his party's message had been given more prominence, it would have 'far more members and we'd be in control of the circumstances now'. 'Unfortunately, you didn't, and we're working for the next campaign to ensure that this time our voices are heard on the way through. 'We are still saying that the drivers to take people from secondary school into employment aren't strong enough. 'Too many people are able to access social welfare without making every effort to get employment, to get jobs. How come we've got so many people who are so-called job-ready but not in jobs?' Part of NZ First's coalition agreement with National included strengthening obligations for beneficiaries and sanctions if those were not fulfilled. Coalition engagement While NZ First may have strong views on immigration, it's National MP Erica Stanford who is the Immigration Minister. 'She's inherited the most difficult portfolio, and it's very hard to try to meet the demands of employers who need essential workers when we've had such a haphazard system,' Peters said. The Government announced last month that it would establish a Parent Boost Visa in September. Based on a National Party election policy, it will allow the parents of migrants to visit New Zealand for up to 10 years as long as they fulfil certain criteria, including having health insurance. As the Herald has reported, the visa has no cap, but Stanford doesn't expect it will lead to an 'explosion' in migration. However, Cabinet documents warned there was 'significant uncertainty' about how many people might take up the visa and that there would be impacts on the health system. Asked for NZ First's view on the policy, Peters stressed that conditions attached to the visa required migrants to pay their medical costs. 'There'd be no cost on the New Zealand taxpayer. Why should the New Zealand taxpayer be paying for someone to come here as a worker, but also now they've got somebody else who is coming here to access our social welfare for free? 'The condition was they would not be required, would not access our social welfare system. That's still our position.' Officials' advice, however, highlighted that, even if the parents had insurance, they could take up spots in GP clinics and emergency rooms. Peters said it was the Government's responsibility to fix 'our GP problem'. He also suggested that, while the visa had no cap, there was a limit on how many people would meet the criteria. Ministers were warned of an impact on the health system from Parent Boost. Photo / File In 2023, NZ First campaigned on having a cap of 1000 on the Parent Resident Visa. It's currently 2500. Asked if he was happy with that cap, Peters responded: 'There are a number of things we're not happy with, but we're working on them every day and every week with the ministers who are concerned. 'We want the outcome and the finality of a policy to be accepted and hopefully across the political divide.' So why should people vote for NZ First over National or Act when it comes to immigration policy? 'There's only one nationalist party in this country, and you're looking at it. The rest are globalists. They don't deny that. 'We're a nationalist party, and I see the success of Croatia, modern Croatia. I see the success of modern Poland. These countries are focused on their people's national interests first and foremost because that's what democracy is answerable to: the people, not the world, but your own people.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
