Latest news with #Greens'
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Tasmanian Greens turn state election into ‘international soapbox' with Gaza spiel
Sky News host Danica De Giorgio discusses Tasmanian Greens Leader Rosalie Woodruff's address to the Tally Room in which she reiterated the Greens' stance on Palestine. 'Yeah, because when you think of Tasmanian politics, of course you naturally think of the Middle East conflict,' Ms De Giorgio told Sky News Australia. 'Only the Greens can turn a state election into an international soapbox. 'I would ask Rosalie, is she an MP for Tasmania or is she a member for Gaza?'
NZ Herald
7 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Letters: Cameron Rd position clarified, traffic flow is faster
While I do sincerely acknowledge that some businesses have issues with customer access since the Cameron Rd upgrade, we do not. Tauranga City Council provided me with a 24-hour, 15-minute loading zone. Pivotal to my business, it enables vehicles, including those with trailers, to drop off and collect goods, regardless of operating bus lanes. From the vantage point of my shop, it is clearly obvious that traffic flow is faster and smoother both ways along Cameron Rd, than prior to the changes. In time, I feel there will be a very positive outcome for all. Howard Jones Naismith & Jones Cameron Rd Cancer treatment The Bay of Plenty Times article regarding decline in the use of low-dose rate brachytherapy to treat prostate cancer was timely and thought-provoking. As a prostate cancer survivor who was treated with brachytherapy in 2008, I can attest to its convenience and effectiveness. As I say in my book Blasted By Seeds (published in 2015), I was in hospital for a night after the procedure on a Thursday afternoon, discharged the next day and back at work the following Tuesday. While I was on medication for several months to control post-treatment symptoms, I kept working fulltime and took minimal sick leave. I was also able to avoid disclosing what had happened to me - which was important in a workplace where there was the possibility of restructuring and downsizing. I doubt my quick return to work would have been possible if I'd undergone prostatectomy - and subsequent hospitalisation. Given the prevalence of prostate cancer, it would be a pity to lose brachytherapy as a treatment option, particularly for men who are diagnosed with early-stage disease and are still working full time. Tom McGrath Karori, Wellington Shoplifting doesn't pay Green MP Tamatha Paul has suggested that people with no money to buy food could turn to shoplifting. Is this suggestion part of the Greens' bold new economic policy? I guess in Tamatha Paul's world, it is only natural that people turn to crime when short of a dollar or two. However, does she not know that food banks exist? Also, if people are short of clothes, then charities exist to help in these circumstances as well. While it is not an ideal situation to rely on charity, one would hope that Paul realises that the crime of shoplifting does not pay. Does she not remember that one of her former colleagues was found guilty of shoplifting even while earning a salary of over $170,000 a year? That's a pretty high pay ceiling to reach while considering whether or not to engage in crime. Bernard Walker Mount Maunganui The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following: Letters should not exceed 200 words. They should be opinion, based on facts or current events. If possible, please email. No noms-de-plume. Letters will be published with names and suburb/city. Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only. Local letter writers are given preference. Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged. Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion. The Editor's decision on publication is final. No correspondence will be entered into. Email editor@
The Spinoff
15-07-2025
- Business
- The Spinoff
Te Pūkenga loses over $80m in funding, 855 staff ahead of disestablishment
The exact number of job losses at Te Pūkenga can now be revealed, as the mega vocational education institute prepares to be split into 10. Mega-institute Te Pūkenga has lost over $80m in funding and one in 10 staff as the nation's largest vocational education provider prepares to be split into 10 polytechnics from the start of 2026, documents released under the Official Information Act show. The government is currently unwinding a 2020 merger of the nation's polytechnics into one entity, moving to a system of 'regional governance' in the hopes of making the sector more financially viable. The documents, released by the Ministry of Education and Tertiary Education Commission to the Greens' vocational education spokesperson Francisco Hernandez and shared with The Spinoff, reveal that staffing numbers at Te Pūkenga dropped by 855 last year, from 10,480 in 2023 to 9,625 in 2024. This equates to about one in 10 roles being cut, including 540 staff at tertiary education institutes and 190 full-time roles (previous documents released by Te Pūkenga projected job losses to be over 150). A separate document confirmed a drop of over $80m in funding for Te Pūkenga this year, from $949,682,296.25 in 2024 to $869,307,291.80 in 2025. This follows the institute making its first ever surplus last year to the tune of $16.6m, after spending $9.5m across its entire network on 288 redundancy payouts. Hernandez said the 'lack of support and ad hoc planning' of the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga had seen the sector, its workers and learners be '[thrown] to the wolves'. 'The cuts to courses, in-person training and teaching staff necessary for the government's new model to add up are undermining vocational education for all learners,' Hernandez said. On Monday, vocational education minister Penny Simmonds confirmed the next steps of the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga would be to break the institute into 10, including a 'federation' which will see The Open Polytechnic absorb Otago Polytechnic and the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) from January 1, 2026. The federation will share online resources, an academic board and other supports to smaller polytechnics which do not have the capacity or financial ability to provide services, at a cost. The 10 polytechnics also include Ara Institute of Canterbury, Eastern Institute of Technology, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, Southern Institute of Technology, Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology, Waikato Institute of Technology, and a single entity combining Unitec Institute of Technology with Manukau Institute of Technology. Meanwhile, North Tech, Taranaki's Western Institute of Technology, Tai Poutini Polytechnic, and Whitireia Community Polytechnic and Wellington Institute of Technology remain within Te Pūkenga. Simmonds said a decision on whether these institutes will be closed or merged would be decided in the first half of 2026, though they would 'most likely need federation support'. The Tertiary Education Union has expressed concern that courses being dropped during the disestablishment process are those that can't accommodate large class sizes, such as agriculture. But Simmonds said that $20m per annum had been set aside for the next two years to support certain regions such as Northland and the East Coast, which had a high need for courses that can't be financially viable through student numbers. About $100m worth of Te Pūkenga assets have been identified for sale, with the funding to be returned to Te Pūkenga, she said. Simmonds, a former chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), told The Spinoff she understood the number of jobs lost to be in the 'several hundreds', and it had been a 'really tough time' for those affected, but they were a part of the 'financial pathway to viability'. She said Otago Polytechnic, whose executive director Megan Pōtiki told RNZ it was 'deeply disappointed' to be included in the federation, has 'a little bit of work to do to get to a surplus' and could be removed from the federation if they met this expectation. Tertiary Education Union national secretary Sandra Gray told The Spinoff about 10% of the vocational education workforce had disappeared, and she expected another 400 roles were in scope to change. A 'huge amount' of burnout had been felt by those who had stayed, she said, and all staff were currently at the maximum of their timetable teaching hours while they picked up the duties of leaving staff. 'We have staff working at the top end of the workloads, having to work evenings and weekends just to stand still,' she said. 'When you're overworked, you can't put time into each student, you can't work in the way you want.' Gray said the federation system would be a 'one-size fits all model of blended learning' which she doubted would achieve its purpose. She saw 'no sense' in any polytechnic wanting to be a part of the federation as it would come at the loss of staff and other resources, while paying to access 'someone else's products'. Even if the four institutes that remained with Te Pūkenga were folded into the federation, Gray doubted the system would be economically viable. Contrary to the minister's position that the un-merging of Te Pūkenga would restore decision-making powers back to the regions, many polytechnics had been 'left in the cold', Gray said. 'They're the ones who are with their students every day, and yet someone in Wellington who once ran a polytechnic is the only one making decisions for everybody without proper consultation … there's no local autonomy at all.'
Scoop
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Green Party's Universal Basic Illusion
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, long considered the progressive conscience of Parliament, has proposed an Income Guarantee, a universal, unconditional payment that would replace or simplify several parts of the welfare system. Framed as a liberating policy to reduce poverty, support unpaid labour, and prepare for a future where work may be scarcer, it has garnered enthusiastic support among progressives. But this proposal is not the radical solution it pretends to be. Instead, it reflects a greenwashed attempt to stabilise capitalism by offering just enough relief to avoid revolt. Far from challenging the structural roots of inequality, private property, wage labour, and capitalist accumulation, the Green Party's UBI functions as a sedative, dulling the sharp edges of exploitation while entrenching the system that causes it. The Green Party's UBI is a reformist containment strategy, not a pathway to liberation. Its implementation would cushion the worst aspects of capitalist life, but in doing so, it would pacify resistance, entrench private ownership, and ultimately protect the interests of capital. What the Greens Propose In 2023, the Green Party unveiled a rebranded version of UBI called the Income Guarantee. This scheme offers: A weekly payment of at least NZD $385 to all adults not in paid work, including students and carers. Higher rates for single parents and families with children. A restructuring of existing welfare benefits, replacing Jobseeker, Sole Parent Support, and Working for Families with a unified baseline payment. A new agency (replacing ACC) to guarantee 80% of minimum wage for those unable to work due to illness or disability. No work obligations, sanctions, or means-testing for this baseline. The Greens frame this as a way to value unpaid work, decouple survival from employment, and support dignity in a time of rising precarity. They also claim that it simplifies bureaucracy and builds trust in people to use the payment in ways that work for their lives. But while these ideas may seem empowering on paper, they carry deep contradictions, particularly when implemented within a capitalist framework. Reforming the System That Creates Poverty The first and most glaring issue with the Greens' Income Guarantee is that it leaves intact the very system that causes poverty and precarity in the first place. People are not poor because there is no universal income; they are poor because the means of production, land, housing, food, energy, are privately owned and controlled by a small class of capitalists. By funnelling a state stipend into a market dominated by landlords, bosses, and corporate monopolies, the Greens' UBI model subsidises capital, not challenges it. The landlord still sets the rent. The supermarket still sets the price of bread. The corporation still determines wages and hours. A 'universal income' becomes a universal transfer of public money to private pockets. This is not wealth redistribution, it's redistribution of dependency. The Greens imagine that by putting cash in your pocket, they are empowering you. But as long as that cash has to pass through the hands of property owners and profiteers, it simply recirculates back into the capitalist machine. Flat Payments in an Unequal World The Green Party's rhetoric of 'universality' masks a dangerous flattening of difference. By giving the same baseline income to all regardless of need, the policy shifts away from needs-based welfare to a market-mediated minimalism. This sounds fair on the surface, but it has regressive implications. A wealthy investor and a single parent receive the same base rate. Meanwhile, tailored supports for disability, illness, or chronic hardship are pared back, replaced with a one-size-fits-all payment that ignores the complexity of human need. While the Greens claim that specialised supports would still exist, the logic of simplification, driven by administrative efficiency and cost, risks future erosion of more expensive targeted benefits. This is not an idle concern. Across the world, UBI experiments have been used to justify welfare cutbacks, particularly under conservative governments that follow. In the long run, a flat payment becomes an excuse to individualise poverty, treating everyone the same while leaving structural inequalities untouched. UBI as Austerity in Disguise UBI can become a tool of austerity, not generosity. By packaging welfare reform as 'universal empowerment,' the state absolves itself of responsibility for meeting complex needs. It shifts risk back onto the individual giving them a cash payment, but removing the broader safety net that once protected people from market volatility. In practice, this leads to privatised hardship - disabled people navigating inaccessible housing markets on a flat income; sole parents forced to stretch meagre funds across rent, food, transport, and children's needs; sick workers unable to afford care once the specialised benefits disappear. UBI may be universal, but its effects are not equal. It entrenches the neoliberal logic that you are responsible for surviving the system, even as the system remains rigged against you. The Work Fetish in Reverse A key selling point of the Green UBI is that it allows people to work less and to study, care for whanāu, volunteer, create art, or simply rest. This is undeniably attractive. For many, the dream of decoupling survival from employment is liberatory. However, UBI doesn't abolish work, it just reorganises who gets to do less of it. The means of production still belong to someone else. People may reduce hours or leave exploitative jobs but they still must buy back access to life from those who own it. Without seizing control of land, housing, food systems, and workplaces, UBI only offers a slower treadmill, not a way off. True liberation from work requires not just the absence of compulsion, but the presence of collective power to shape what, how, and why we produce. Under capitalism, UBI is not freedom from work it is still just freedom to consume what others profit from. Automation and the Myth of Post-Work Capitalism Another justification for UBI is the coming wave of automation. As jobs are replaced by AI and machines, we are told, we need a universal income to ensure people aren't left behind. This argument is both outdated and naïve. Automation is not new it has always accompanied capitalism. And rather than freeing us from labour, it has consistently resulted in: Job displacement for the many, Wealth concentration for the few, And a race to the bottom for those still working. Without changing the ownership of technology and the surplus it generates, automation becomes a weapon against workers, not a liberation. UBI does not challenge this, it merely proposes a bribe to stay quiet while the rich get richer from robotic productivity. If we want automation to free us, we must demand common ownership of its fruits, not a state-managed allowance. Depoliticising the Class Struggle UBI has a profoundly depoliticising function. By providing everyone a basic income, it suggests that class conflict can be solved through technocratic redistribution, rather than collective struggle. It individualises economic survival and replaces mutual aid with state-administered charity. The Greens often present this as 'trusting people.' But in truth, it is a move away from politics altogether, away from strikes, occupations, assemblies, and direct action. It encourages people to become passive consumers of state policy rather than active agents of transformation. This is no accident. UBI fits comfortably within the liberal logic of non-confrontational progressivism - small gains, managed well, with no need to question who owns what or why. But anarcho-communists know that liberation is not granted it is seized. The abolition of wage labour, rent, and bosses does not come from a Treasury paper. It comes from resistance, solidarity, and revolt. The Green Fetish for Policy Without Revolution Ultimately, the Green Party's UBI is a reflection of their broader political project - a capitalism with a conscience. Their aim is to regulate, reform, and humanise the existing system not to overturn it. This is the great tragedy of Green politics: it mobilises the language of justice to protect the architecture of oppression. They speak of liberation while fearing confrontation. They dream of balance sheets, not barricades. The Income Guarantee is not a step toward socialism. It is a safety valve for capitalism, designed to prevent breakdown by making survival just bearable enough to forestall uprising. As long as the Greens seek legitimacy in Parliament, they will remain managers of compromise, not agents of emancipation. Toward a Real Alternative Anarcho-communists do not oppose the idea of everyone having their needs met. But we reject the idea that this must come in the form of a wage or income. We do not want better access to markets we want a world without them. Imagine a society where housing is free because it is collectively owned. Where food is grown and shared in community gardens, not bought. Where care work is respected and supported through mutual aid, not commodified. Where education, transport, and health are decommodified. Where people work not for profit, but for one another. This is not utopia. It exists in fragments already in marae, solidarity kitchens, workers' co-ops, and mutual aid networks. These are the embryos of a post-capitalist future. We don't need a basic income. We need basic expropriation. We need the end of property, not its pacification. No Wages, No Compromise The Green Party's UBI plan, however well-intentioned, is not a solution to poverty. It is a reformist illusion, an elegant attempt to stabilise a decaying system without addressing the violence at its core. It replaces welfare with technocracy, struggle with dependence, and solidarity with state charity. We say: No wages. No landlords. No bosses. No income guarantees only freedom from all need for income at all. We do not ask for a universal basic income. We demand a universal reclaiming of life itself.
Daily Record
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Record
Ross Greer pledges to take on Scotland's super rich if elected Greens co-leader
Greer launched his leadership campaign in Partick by claiming he would fight to fix a system "rigged" by the wealthiest. Ross Greer has pledged to take on Scotland's "super rich" if he's elected one of the Greens' next co-leaders. The MSP launched his leadership campaign in Partick today with a call for all bus travel to be made free and pledge to clampdown on tax loopholes that advantage the wealthy. Green members will vote this month on who the party's next two co-leaders should be after the long-serving Patrick Harvie announced his intention to step down. Speaking today, Greer said he would fight to fix a system "rigged" by the wealthiest. He added: "It is the extremely wealthy who need to pay for the kind of transformation that we need in our society." Asked how he would take on the super rich, Greer continued: "Simply ending the tax breaks the super rich already have under devolution. There are Tory MSPs in Parliament who are some of Scotland's landowners, who get tax breaks for their shooting estates - tax breaks that are designed for small businesses. "The Government has £250,000,000 tax break scheme that their own review found no positive benefits from. Imagine we had spent £250,000,000 on tackling poverty, or tackling the climate emergency instead. "I can't think of anyone in Scotland, outside of the Tory party, who thinks their MSPs deserve tax breaks for their shooting estates. That's money that we could be investing in policies that I'm advocating for, like universal bus travel." Asked by the Record if he was calling for higher income tax levels, Greer added: "The income tax system in Scotland is already by far the most progressive in the UK, because of the Scottish Greens. This year alone, we are raising alone about £1.7 billion more than we otherwise would, if it wasn't the income tax changes secured by Patrick Harvie. "There is a little bit more progress that we could make on income tax, there's always a little bit more that you can raise. But what we really need to do now in Scotland is pivot towards taxing the wealth of the extremely wealthy, particularly in relation to property. "Some of the richest people in this country pay very little income tax because that's not how they arrange their finances. That's why we need to look at wealth taxation in particular. "We also need to tax big polluters. Some of the biggest landowners in this country have allowed their land to get in such a state, that's actually emitting huge amounts of emissions into the atmosphere. We can tax that, to raise money and to force them to look after their land better."
